User talk:Spinnaker gybe

Welcome!

Hello, Spinnaker gybe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try one of these three things: ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Cheers!—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Spinnaker gybe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

69.31.240.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Spinnaker gybe". The reason given for Spinnaker gybe's block is: "soapboxing account".

Blocking administrator: YellowMonkey (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 22:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinnaker gybe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have just been providing instances of where this article violates WP Standards. This type of conversation is allowed by Wikipedia and is actually encouraged. I have repeatedly shown support for initiatives which I feel are appropriate; others on this site have not provided any constructive action at all or supported or objected to any initiative proposed by others. My responses have only been in response to others statements, which I have provided in quotes, and my opinions about these statements have not been shown to be unreasonable. So far, no-one has provided any evidence that the objections I have raised are invalid or inappropriate. My detractors have provided no reason why these changes should not be made, and have not provided a timeline for the changes to be made in order for the WP standards to be met. We have been discussing the basis of how this article is to be rewritten and the basis of the content and this is not contrary to WP policy. In my opinion this is administrator abuse and I will take this to the dispute mechanism if the block is not removed. What you are forcing is a wiki crisis and I am resolute in ensuring justice is done. How do I contact the administrators directly? How can my request to unblock be declined before I made a request to unblock?

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spinnaker gybe (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

|decline=No valid reason given for unblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinnaker gybe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think someone owes me an explanation of "soapboxing account" so I can relay this to the dispute mechanism. This is not an acceptable reason if it is not explained.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spinnaker gybe (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinnaker gybe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Also, please provide the section of the WP rules I have allegedly violated so that I can deal with these accusations

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spinnaker gybe (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinnaker gybe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have read the WP blocking policies and I see no rational for the block. Also administrators are obligated to discuss any behavior in violation of WP policies before initiating the block. In addition, you cannot just ignore me; you are supposed to negotiate the unblocking and discuss the behavior that is not allowed in the talk page. In my opinion, this blocking action is without merit and reflects the administrators desire to block reasonable changes to the article.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spinnaker gybe (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinnaker gybe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If I get no response from the administrators, I am quite certain this block will be overruled in the mediation and dispute mechanism. If I have to go to the dispute mechanism because of no response from you and this block is found to be superfluous, I will seek restrictions on your administration status. You have received fair warning.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spinnaker gybe (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinnaker gybe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is evident that you do not know the rules regarding blocking. I refer you to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The valid reasons for blocking are: Protection, Disruption, Open or anonymous proxies, Enforcing bans, Evasion of blocks, Recording in the block log after user name change; I have not violated any of these rules. Wikipedia:Blocking policy also states when a block cannot be used. These situations are Disputes, Cool-down blocks, and Recording in the block log. In my opinion, you are in violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy because you are using it to stop a dispute on how to proceed in rewriting this article. We were doing just find trying to come to a consensus on how to proceed when YellowMonkey, Sandstein, and Ohnoitsjamie chose to intervene in a tyranical manner. In addition, an indefinite block can only be used in the following circumstances. An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. In less extreme cases, however, the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and—if unblocked—to refrain from the problematic conduct in future.. You are in clear violation of this rule and have shown no reasonable attempt at discussion. Also, I refer you to Wikipedia:Appealing a block especially Abuse of the blocking process because if this irresponsible action continues, I want you to be prepared for the appeal process. Basically my argument is No Warning, No Justification, No Discussion - No Administrative Rights!. If you are not going to abide by WP policies, I ask for YellowMonkey, Sandstein, and Ohnoitsjamie to resign their administrative privileges because if anyone should know the rules, it should be the administrators.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spinnaker gybe (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinnaker gybe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been trying to find out what you mean by "Soapboxing" and I found the part of the rules you are refering to Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX. Maybe you should provide the link next time; must have been an honest mistake. I will list the points of Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX; Wikipedia is not 1)Propaganda, activity or recruitment, 2)Opinion pieces, 3)Scandal mongering, 4)Self promotion, and 5)Advertising. I am obviously not in violation of point 1) or point 2). All I am trying to achieve is a balanced article with NPOV. In my entries on the talk page I specifically state "Using your own facts" which makes my statements devil's advocacy not soapboxing. Devil's advocacy is used to show that another opinion can be formed from the same facts and that due consideration should be given to this opinion. If I were to write an encyclopedia other than Wiki, they would pass it on to their academic contacts to substantiate or refute it. Also I state my specific concerns again and I quote, "My specific objections are with the use of vilifying words, statement of opinion as fact, omission of key information from the summary of causes of the war, relegation of important information to the links, errors in the relation between cause and effect, and making comparisons between Germany's, Italy's and Japan's unification in the German Unification link." These objections are not soapboxing they are valid concerns which are upheld by the WP rules. In fact, I argue that the article as it stands now is in violation of point 1 since it violates NPOV and in my opinion is extreme and one-sided, but are you blocking the article? No you are not. As for the rest of the points, it is obvious I am not violating them either. Please respond in reasonable time as you obligated to do

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spinnaker gybe (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinnaker gybe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

21 days and counting. Is there a blocking review backlog? If not, it is obvious that admins will not discuss the matter because they have nothing to substantiate their block. As a wikipedian, don't I get to perform peer reviews as stated in the WP policies or not? Also I have not finished presenting my points on what should be allowed as valid references. As a case in point, the Discovery channel had a show on the Lusitania. They dove to the spot the Lusitania was sunk and found out that the ship was carrying munitions to be used by the British. This is a fact and should be allowed to be presented as a fact in the WWI article. Also because the passengers were not told this by the Americans or the British, this in my opinion classifies as an atrocity. Today we call this using innocent people as human shields. From what I have heard, the Americans and British denied the ship was carrying munitions; if this is true, this should also be presented as fact. This brings up a nother point about history. If it is proved the Americans and British were lying, how do we know any party's true intent, or is it possible that most statements by countries and their governments were prevarications. This is why I argue that the Discovery channel should be allowed as a valid reference. Others disagree with using this reference, but it is already stated in the WP article on the Lusitania that it was likely a legitimate target so I should be allowed to state it under the atrocity section of the WWI article. In the meantime while I am in wiki-jail, I am going to research this incident further to get all side of view so I can make my first sandbox entry.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spinnaker gybe (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWI Sandbox[edit]

While I appreciate your attempts to improve the trial-version, I would ask that you direct all comments to the talk page of the sand box, or use hidden comments in the article, rather than disrupt the text. Cam ^(Chat) 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Cam, As long as everyone knows where to put their comments and find the sandbox, I am in agreement.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I know that most university libraries have a copy of "The Origins of World War I" by Herwig and Hamilton - both the libraries of Mount Royal College and the University of Calgary have the book, and I've actually met Herwig on several occasions. The book is brilliant, analyzing the buildup from the POV of each state's ambitions rather than the whole military-alliances thing. Cam ^(Chat) 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation[edit]

Were you referring to this: On the Origin and Evolution of the Word Inflation. [1] PennySeven (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]