User talk:EKBK

I have used Wikipedia as a source, and never bothered doing any editing. When I noticed what I considered a good definition being continually slammed down after the user was obviously working hard to come up with something better than the lame one it replaced, I went in and reverted it, only to be promptly blocked by some person called jayjg, and termed a "sockpuppet". What a trip. I emailed a few administrators, including him, and got nowhere. That makes me think its more important for the administrators here(at least Jayjg and Angela, the ones I contacted) to stick together than be fair. Apparently USERS of the site aren't as important as EDITORS! --EKBK 14:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that you're more than a "user", you are in fact an editor (you become an editor when you edit something... including a revert), Angela seems to have unblocked you. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

She also warned me to not do anything else that would get me blocked. Seeing as how I only expressed my opinion between the two articles in question by picking the one I liked best, as per Wikipedia 3RR instructions, it looks like it's pretty hard to avoid getting blocked or called names unless I stay just a user. --EKBK 22:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unalienable Rights

Thanks for speaking up when you see blatantly corrupt editing. You should see this guy, Mel, over at Inalienable rights. He's changed the wording of the Declaration of Independence from unalienable to inalienable. If you want to speak up about this too, please feel free. --Zephram Stark 22:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Why, thank you! I do believe I will go check it out! I haven't been a big contributor here, but big or small, we all count, right? --EKBK 15:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked this account indefinitely as a sockpuppet used to violate policy. If you feel this block is unfair or mistaken, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke! I emailed you SEVERAL times the FIRST time I was blocked. I used my regular email, which made my IP apparent. What do you want, an invitation to dinner? This is absolutely ridiculous. I broke no rules, and you know I am not a sockpuppet. You are intimidated by anyone who voices an opinion on any page Zephram Stark edits, that's what has become obvious to me.--EKBK 15:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By all means e-mail me, and we can discuss how you can show you're a genuine editor. I'm very willing to be persuaded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked this account. Feel free to post evidence or something that's convincing (other than your say-so) as to why this user should be blocked. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've also unprotected this page... I'm not sure why it was protected in the first place. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Account has been re-blocked by SlimVirgin and this talk page re-protected as well. I have not yet unblocked the account again, but I am unprotecting this page. No reason was given on Wikipedia:Protected page, and I had to dig in the protection logs to find SV's stated reason. The given rationale "indefinitely blocked user continued to post" is not a commonly accepted reason to protect a page. Furthermore, even if it were, the failure to follow procedure (leave a notice of protection on this page and a rationale on WP:Pp) alone would justify my unprotection. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dante. I re-iterate: I am NOT Zephram Stark, or anyone else other than ME! Slim Virgin, I went over to Dante's discussion page and found you were discussing the fact I had emailed you, and that I had sent you a few examples of my work. You promised our emails would be CONFIDENTIAL, and here you are publicly stating elements of such. It's not a joke to me, and I do not appreciate the fact you made it impossible for me to respond here. You asked me to email you from a different email other than my hotmail, and when I told you I am not allowed to use my work email for personal stuff, you didn't offer an alternative OR accept alternatives I offered(which, I may add, would have given you DEFINITIVE proof I am not anyone other than who I say I am). The fact I do not go online at home is not a reason to discriminate against me. My IP is plain to see when I send directly from hotmail, so what's the problem? Do you want an email with a header that shows my NAME? Why should I have to jump through these hoops? I don't know you from Adam. This source, Wikipedia, is supposed to be a fair and impartial place. I stated some opinions on another user's posts and you seem to be trying to do your level best to make sure I can't do that again. I can think of no other plausible reason for your actions. It's unfortunate. I wish to be un-blocked immediately, and to add that you have treated me in a biased and unfair way.--EKBK 16:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)(NOTE: EKBK wishes me to clarify that there was an error in the above, it was SV's user talk page not mine where EKBK asserts that confidence was violated. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]