User talk:Npcomp

Blocked for an indefinite period
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for from reviewing your recent edits, it appears that your primary purpose for contributing to Wikipedia is to add material advancing the complaints made by Dr Simon Spacey against the University of Waikato, largely supported by references to what appear to be self-published articles and other material by him (for instance, , , , , ). This is clearly not appropriate encyclopaedic content, and is not neutral given that the matter remains under investigation according to this news story with the university disputing Dr Spacey's complaints. Wikipedia is not a suitable forum for such material, especially given that its the subject of legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Reason for Not Unblocking

 * You should be prepared to have your unblock request declined again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that preparation advice. It would be helpful if you could look at whether the block was actually valid or not as discussed above (e.g. there was no copyright issue, the info was relevant here and other admins accepted the other info elsewhere) and perhaps provided some more detailed advice. npcomp (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, not removing the "Project Status" section on my part was not an endorsement of its inclusion. While I can only speak for myself, I think Kelapstick would agree. I will not review this unblock request, but even if we agree that the inclusion of the section was not a copyright violation (and as far as I can tell, it's not), there are other issues here. Your history presents you as a single-purpose account focused on advocacy. Please, please, please read those two pages and reconsider the focus of your unblock request. —  Earwig   talk 21:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks The Earwig. Your advice is helpful. npcomp (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I missed that the pop-up statement had a CC BY-SA note at the end: the website states that it is copyright, so my mistake. But I didn't institute the block for copyright violations, and this account's edit warring to include that statement and similar material in the article despite other editors pointing out that it's totally inappropriate content was a part of the broader pattern of conduct for which the block was imposed. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)