User talk:Orangeshop

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Larry Lea has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Tommy! [ message ] 12:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Larry Lea, you may be blocked from editing. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Larry Lea, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

A couple of things about your unblock request: First, you still have not explicitly withdrawn the violation of WP:NLT, nor agreed to strike the offending posts using ... if unblocked; second, you have now opened up a whole new can of worms: WP:COI and WP:OR  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That can of worms had already been opened, so I was surprised not to see it addressed in the unblock request. Not to mention WP:OWN. Harry the Dog WOOF  09:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As well as striking the post mentioned, perhaps it would be a welcome gesture of goodwill to include an offer to not directly edit Larry Lea but propose changes on the talk page (considering the I was editing for a friend issue)? With recent improvements to sources there appears little that could be contested as lacking reliable sources, so I would expect such requests to be minimal or for additional sources and biographical facts. Fæ (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOLT asks that we don't let policies like WP:NLT lead to editing cluelessly and adversely affecting some innocent person's life. Considering the content which was blanked, I strongly suggest WP:DOLT is a very relevant policy in this case. Iain UK  talk  22:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the page wasn't blanked. It was replaced with copyvio content. This change also violated several other Wikipedia policies. The warning points to these policies and asks the editor to read them.


 * Secondly, as a result of this, two editors with no connection to the subject did in fact take it upon themselves to look at the article and make substantial improvements to it, such that there is no longer any unsourced BLP material. These two editors did not always agree which meant that a lot of thought went into the changes. Far from the result being a worse article, it is much improved. But I am yet to be convinced that Orangeshop will be satisfied until his "official" version is restored.


 * So I really don't think WP:DOLT applies in this case. Harry the Dog WOOF  05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. I trust your judgement, just thought it should be considered.  Iain UK   talk  06:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair dos. Harry the Dog WOOF  08:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to help request
Based on your recent request "Please send me instructions on how I may be able to resolve this situation" you may need some support to understand what to do next. I suggest the following steps would help to get you unblocked if you are now prepared to comply with the guidance referenced above: Please note, I do not claim to be an expert advisor so I welcome further suggestions from other editors for how you should proceed and ask that they chip in with some advice if I have missed some points above. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Take some time to review the guidance of:
 * Appealing a block
 * No legal threats
 * Conflict of interest - you may only edit for yourself and represent your own opinion
 * Copyright violations
 * 1) Write up a new unblock request addressing the additional points above (if you agree with them) to explain how you would like to withdraw the legal threat made and how future edits will comply with the guidelines. Pay particular attention to the reasons given for the unblock request being declined. You may wish to volunteer to not editing Larry Lea in future, though you would be welcome to make proposals for change on the talk page. If you are unclear about some of the reasons for your block or how best to interpret the guidelines listed please ask for further clarification here. The unblock request does not have to be long, but must address all the points raised.
 * 2) If your second request fails, do ask for an explanation if there are reasons you do not understand. Unreasonable repeated requests for an unblock are discouraged, so it is important to ensure that your unblock request is genuinely written and you have taken on-board the reasons for the block and unblock denial.


 * Good advice. Note further that your Talk Page is not blocked. You can still edit it. Can I suggest that if you still feel the article can be improved, you make a request here? I am watching this page and will consider any requests for improvement (as I am sure will others). A few positive suggestions (even if in the end they aren't incorporated) would certainly be looked on favourably in any future unblock request. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)