User talk:Gratans

Neumont University spammers.

I will try my best to keep the spammers away. Most of these spammmers were in Wikipedia before Neumont University hired them. Best regards--Collegestud (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK

You may already be aware of this, but as you are new I just wanted to make sure you were aware that all the warnings on your talk page will continue to be found in your history and that removing warnings is simply a recognition that they have been read. See WP:OWNTALK for more information. 72Dino (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. If you and ElKevbo could stop spamming my Talk page that would be great. I know you are trying to make me look bad, but still, its a bit much. Gratans (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. This was an honest attempt to help you learn more about how Wikipedia works. If you don't want the help (at least from me), so be it. Your use of the term spam, though, is unusual and does not have anything to do with how the term WP:Spam is used on Wikipedia. I'll be off your talk page except for standard warnings, should those prove necessary. 72Dino (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Your recent editing history at Neumont University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You really need to stop editing the article until you can agreement from other editors on the talk page. NE Ent 19:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The still-pending SPI investigation regarding my Wikipedia account has already determined that my alleged "sockpuppet account" Collegestud used a very different IP address than mine - in fact it sounds, according to DeltaQuad, like it came from Neumont University campus as I expected, trying to sabotage my Wikipedia account. How do you overlook this fact, Berean Hunter? I live extremely far away from that IP range, which was confirmed by DeltaQuad ... besides the fact that the Collegestud account was indeed created at exactly the same time (within hours, confirmed by Acdixon) as Neumont University's other (still currently active) sockpuppet account named Nemont. So... why did Berean Hunter block me even knowing this was true, and without leaving me a block explanation? P.S. How did my complaint against ElKevbo for cussing and harassing other editors turn into a forum about my account instead? How many editors at Wikipedia is Neumont University keeping on their payroll these days? Gratans (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Technically" unrelated does not mean you're not socking. However, the accusations about admins AND other editors are enough WP:NOTTHEM that this unblock request is unactionable. You'd be well-served in reading WP:GAB and WP:EBUR before contemplating such accusatory unblock requests in the future. There may indeed be something rotten in the state of Denmark, but focus on your unblock, and not the actions/behaviour/accusations of others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

Please contact me

Hi there - I am the Director, Community Advocacy for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that supports Wikipedia. It's very important that I talk to you - would you please email me at philippewikimedia.org at your earliest opportunity? Again, it's very important and urgent that I speak with you. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice

We demand that you update our Wiki entry to say "Private University" - our true classification - and stop labeling us a for-profit career college. We will not hesitate to subpoena all of your true identities again in federal court. We've already been assisted in bringing down the Controversy section of our page due to our cyber-stalkers spreading lies about us. Just because our investors are Mormon does not mean we are a Mormon school. And just because one of our directors was investigated for fraud and bribery years ago does not mean our school deserves a Controversy section on Wikipedia. We will continue to fight anyone who attacks our school on the internet. You have been warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymani (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)