User talk:Irelan12

--Irelan12 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Welcome![reply]

Hello, Irelan12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Dave Winer , is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Meters (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Irelan12 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Dave Winer

Hi. Please be sure to edit with a neutral point of view, particularly on articles where you may have a Conflict of Interest.

Dave_Winer#Cybersquatting states "Public attention was first drawn to this practice when Gawker ran a story about Winer purchasing the domain name NickIrelan.com after Nick Irelan argued with him on his blog...".
On Talk:Dave_Winer#Lawsuit you've been accusing other editors of bad faith on this topic ("Quit undoing things and calling them vandalism. If the statements are true they can be here. Quit trying to edit out anything negative. ... Its nice that this page is protected every time someone adds something that isn't flattering to Dave Winer" and not being particularly civil "the people here are simply biased and childish"
Your userpage states "Hello, my name is Nick". This, together with your username(s) and the above points suggests the COI. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Nirelan (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2012 (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).

Irelan12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nothing I have done violates the rules of Wikipedia. The editors of Dave Winer simply do not like that I added things that do not flatter the subject. They have been allowed to add things that are obvioulsy not true. Editthispage.com is listed as a Winer creation in the article, when the link that is used as a reference to it shows a screen shot that says it was a Userland Software website. I realize it is his company, but rules are rules. We can't just include things to make someone sound important or billions of people would need Wikis. Regarding my former account, it was banned for disagreeing with these same people. Notice that I never vandalized the article, back then. Also, the edits that I got banned for making, such as removing the claim that he invented RSS, are now part of the article. I shouldn't be banned for FIXING UNTRUE STATEMENTS. The proof that what I said was correct is that the current article reflects what I said. The three revert rule should not apply to one removing misstatements added by someone who personally knows the topic of the article.

Decline reason:

If you are banned, or blocked, under your former account then creating a new account is block evasion, which does indeed violate the rules of wikipedia. A block is applied to the person, not to the account name.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I understand that, but no rules were broken when my first account was banned. You can't just block someone because you do not like what they have to say. As I noted I merely fixed items that were not true. Please take that into account or unblock my first account. I don't understand how someone can be banned forever for taking out untrue statements.--Irelan12 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, although your block as Nirelan was in 2007, the Wikipedia:Standard offer cannot reasonably apply in your case. You immediately began editing under this new account in the same tendentious manner that you were blocked for in 2007. --RA (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Striking: the 2007 account was not blocked indefinitely. --RA (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand that the things I was editing are not true? Is this a site for made up ideas or a site that is meant ot be an Encyclopedia? We are supposed to edit out the untruths.--Irelan12 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2012 (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).

Irelan12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please read the comment posted above. I am only blocked because people who want untrue information to stay are complaining. I have done nothing wrong. If having a new account that I have done nothing wrong with is against the rules then please unblock the old account.

Decline reason:

If you wish to have your other account unblocked, make your request there. Since you have not addressed any of the reasons for your block(s), including block evasion, which is expressly against Wikipedia policy, I doubt that it will be granted there either. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Irelan12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Read the above comment. No one is block evading. I didn't even remember that account was blocked and I don't know the password. How do you become unblocked if making a new account and following the rules is against the rules. Also, why are we still allowing incorrect info to be in the article?--Irelan12 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This can't be a block evading sock puppet, because the other account is not blocked and has not been for five years. (It also has not been used in five years.) The conflict of interest still exists, and you'll need to deal with this, but this account is in no way guilty of what it has been blocked for. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nirelan got banned indefinitely in 2007 for edit warring on Dave Winer under a variety of usernames: User_talk:Nirelan#Block. He apparently managed to talk one administrator into converting the block into a sockpuppeteer template, another administrator to convert the sockpuppeteer template into an abandoned account, and then yet another administrator to lift the block on Irelan12 on the basis of Nirelan being merely an account to which he'd lost his login. Nirelan/Irelan12's assertion that he isn't evading a block is a shameless lie: Irelan12 is a well-documented sockpuppet of Nirelan. For a discussion of the user's current exploits, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dave Winer and Talk:Dave_Winer. ARK (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a great believer in honesty and accuracy when dealing with blocks and unblocks. If you bother looking at the block log, you'll see that all the blocks on Nirelan's account were from one admin, as were all the unblocks, including the last one. So all those "other administrators" you refer to are the same person, other than me, the most recent unblocker. Nobody talked "other administrators" into anything; I simply looked at the block log and reached the correct conclusion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The admininistrator who blocked Nirelan in 2007 said that the ban was indefinite for edit warring on Dave Winer under a variety of usernames: User_talk:Nirelan#Block. I'm sorry for making speculations on the basis of that statement. It turned out that the original ban was not indefinite, and Nirelan got away on this technicality. Meanwhile, his behaviour continues to be contemptuous of his fellow editors. ARK (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, user:Irelan12 is out and about merely because his original user:Nirelan account was not blocked indefinitely, allowing him to get his recent indefinite block for block evasion reverted on a technicality. Nirelan went through a whole Muppet Show of sock puppets, however, and Nirelan2 was blocked indefinitely, as was NickIre, which should be sufficient cause to block user:Irelan12 indefinitely. Here's a discussion from the archives. ARK (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Winer - edit warring - WP:EW

Your recent editing history at Dave Winer 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. 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. - Youreallycan 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am dissapointed that you continue to edit war - I will give you fifteen minutes to self revert while I write the 3RR report to the noticeboard - I suggest to you - it is better to self revert than to be reported - Youreallycan 19:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even understand what you are saying? I have shown that I took out untrue information. You edited it to reflect the untruths, but you have not shown anything new that makes it true.--Irelan12 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (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).

Irelan12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I provided proof in the talk page that the comments I deleted were untrue. Read the talk page and see; I clearly stated that the company Dave Winer worked for made the things listed. The company's page clearly says so. If they simply undo my changes, which are shown to be correct by adding info in the discussion page they are at fault. They are edit warring.Irelan12 (talk) 3:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Whether you're right or not is immaterial. You are not allowed to edit war on Wikipedia, even if you are posting 100% pure truth. When edits are disputed, you are expected to discuss them, not repeatedly re-do them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Irelan12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No reason provided for request. Tiptoety ^talk 19:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Irelan12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did discuss the changes.
In the talk page I said Userland Software made Editthispage.com, but it is listed in Dave Winer.
The other editors agreed that the site was not made by Dave Winer.

"It is common knowledge that EditThisPage was a UserLand site, there is no "proof" required. Nobody, however, finds your argument convincing that the circumstance is grounds for excluding EditThisPage from Winer's biography. DaveNet and Scripting News were UserLand sites at the time. ARK (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)"

Everything on Wikipedia must be referenced and ture.
I therefore removed it from Dave Winer because everyone agreed Userland Software made the site.
They undid the edit several times.
That means they are edit warring.

Irelan12 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: you must not edit war even if you believe that you're right. Max Semenik (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Irelan12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Read the above post. I did not edit war. I undid someone who was vandalizing the article. Irelan12 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Content disputes are not vandalism. You are on very thin ice; I suggest you step back from that article and restrict yourself to the talk page until you gain consensus for your proposed edits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Irelan12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See post above. Then tell me how to take out information that is proven untrue, if they want to put untrue information in. Do they just get to say we got together and decided to put false information here? Irelan12 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nick, edit warring is no way to improve articles. In all likelihood, it will only get you blocked forever. If the Dave Winer article is wrong then it has been wrong for some time (years even?). A few more days, or even months, won't hurt. Have a cup of tea then go for a walk.
Wikipedia articles are written based on Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Verifiability. They are NOT based on truth.
jpgordon, is right to warn you above that you are on very thin ice. Please, sit out your block, read the policies linked above and, when your block has expired, consider editing pages not related to Dave Winer.
NB: If you post another unblock request to this page, you will risk having your access to this page revoked and/or your block extended. --RA (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I wonder if there is any way of getting you to understand the following. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you believe you are right". I am surprised that you have been allowed to post effectively the same unblock request five times without your talk page access being removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that, but you aren't listening. By that standard I could take Microsoft out of Bill Gate's article and just let it slide as long as my friends are on there and say it is ok. Also, how can we agree in the talk page that he didn't make the site like you ask, without being able to remove the thing that says he made it?--Irelan12 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, I have nothing to do with either you or the admins but I think the point the admin is trying to make that if something causes you to edit something several times (more than three in 24 hours is a general guideline) then something is very wrong. You are either correcting mistakes (as in grammar fixes, etc) which is fine or else you are fighting and reverting actual vandalism. If you feel that you have to edit something someone else contributed several times that is plainly not against the rules, think for a second. Think "okay, this person is obviously wrong and I'm right... but he/she thinks that he/she is right, too. The bets course of action is to ask someone else to view it and see what's best". I got my start on an edit war myself with another user who use Twinkle, to revert my edits. Twinkle is only used to revert vandalism. None of my edits were vandalism.

The point I'm trying to make is that Wikipedia is open to everyone and sometimes you need to ask for help. Sorry if it seemed liked I'm interefering but I just wanted to have my say because I understand where you are coming from and I know how frustrating it can be when you're being treated like a vandal and have no idea what to do. Gorlack36 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read what you guys keep posting, but you do not seem to read what I have said. We agreed he did not make the listed website. Then they undid me taking something we agreed he didn't make out of the article.--Irelan12 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irelan12 is trying to redefine an irrelevant concession as an agreement. There was no agreement and Irelan12 made his edits fully aware of the fact that he was overriding the talk page consensus. In fact, the one consistent pattern in Irelan12's editing of the Dave Winer page is his egregious disregard for the talk page consensus and his sense of entitlement to dictate "the truth". ARK (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ark, I can provide an actual Screenshot that shows Editthispge.com was a Userland site. I can also show that Winer, himself, said that Userland made the site, by refering to the creators as "we" I can show that ark agreed Userland made the site. That means they can not continue to claim Dave and not Userland ran the site. You are nothing short of a liar. --Irelan12 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... you can't go around calling people liars. You're meant to have a neutral attitude in all of this. A better phrase would have been "you are mistaken in thinking Dave ran the site". Gorlack36 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorlack36 (talk), I have been neutral. However, when someone trys to get me banned so they can include something I have shown them is not true, he is liying.--Irelan12 (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the entire point. Look at this, most notably the golden rule. Gorlack36 (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think you've been bullied or attacked or anything like that... ignore that person and contact an admin. It's far easier for everyone if (for example), I call you an idiot and you inform an admin instead of calling me an idiot in response and getting in a war of name calling. It's less work for the admins, it's less stress for us and more importantly, you won't get into trouble.

Gorgak, thats reasonable if someone will fix the problem. However, as I have shown even when I post screen shots they include things that are untrue. Instead of trying to focus on saying I did something wrong, lets fix the article.--Irelan12 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2012 (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).

Irelan12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Read above. An admin just told me to let the page be wrong? So its ok to post lies? I am not trying to cause problems, but seriously, how do you remove untrue info when people are going to fight like this? Irelan12 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have altered your block so that you cannot edit this talk page in order to prevent further use of the {{unblock}} template. Please read through the comments and advice, including the links, left during previous declines of your request to be unblocked. Regards, --RA (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Help us help you

Hi, Sorry if you're feeling frustrated.

Sorry about the whole wp:sockpuppet issue. While looking at the conflict of interest issue I noted on your talk page, I became concerned you might be using WP:socks for an other than legitimate purpose (and refer to the prior wp:spi for your old account - you don't want to again do what led that old account to be temporarily blocked several times), which is why I added a tag to your user page. There is nothing wrong with having more than one account, as long as you are not doing so in contravention of policy. I'm glad you were unblocked from your wp:sock-block, as your other account was not blocked.
Regarding your current block - you are edit warring. Except for very limited exceptions (and please read the policy, if you're interested), edit warring is a blockable action. Note that being right (and I'm not saying you are or are not) does not excuse edit warring, and continuing to do so is a problem.
Regarding the edits you've been making - I'm not involved in the article, so I can't tell what's going on from your perspective. From the perspective of an outside observer:
- You are deleting text that has citation (in wiki-terminology, they are based on reliable sources).
- Your reasoning on the article talk page is limited to stating that you know that the information is wrong (with some uncivil words for other editors) - but I don't recall seeing a citation to a reliable source that agrees with you (read wp:rs carefully). Even if you did have such a source, there are other sources, already shown in the article, that seem to disagree with you.
- If you'd like an outside opinion, perhaps you could start by posting a simple reference to a reliable source that supports your edits (e.g., a URL). Your own personal knowledge is insufficient. If the source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, then perhaps you can find another.
- Even if the source is reliable, there may be other policy issues regarding the changes you seem to want to make (e.g., wp:undue). Calmly making your case here (for now, but when you are unblocked, to the article's talk page) is the start of addressing your concern.
- If you don't want to do as I suggest, or you are unsatisfied once you do so, there are dispute resolution processes available to you that won't get you blocked. See, as a start:
  - WP:RFC
  - WP:DR
  - WP:RSN
- Finally, despite your frustration, you really must be civil in your comments, assume good faith and not be disruptive in your editing. When you ignore these policies (as a brief glance at your long history of editing this article suggests have done), you diminish your own credibility, and risk further blocks.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe you seem to be a reasonable man. I talked about Editithispage.com being a Userland website and not Dave Winer's and added that a screen shot listed in the article's reference proves that. The others agreed. That means I should be able to remove anything that says Winer made the site. --Irelan12 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I believe that a fair summary of the consensus on this point is (a) EditThisPage was a Userland site and product, (b) that Userland's CEO and chief developer was Dave Winer, the subject of this page, (c) the information does belong in Dave Winer's page. The subject might also be discussed on the Userland page, of course, and I believe I suggested that you might improve that Wikipedia entry by adding information about EditThePage. No consensus exists on removing this information from Winer's biography; indeed, in the recent round of discussions of the topic, yours was the only voice in favor of doing so. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nick, can you provide a URL here that supports your position? (Don't forget that there may be an issue of that source being considered reliable, but we'll cross that bridge later). As for "The others agreed.", can you provide diffs (URL link(s) to the talk page edits showing that you had consensus. Finally, as to whether what you provided previously "means I should be able to remove anything that says Winer made the site" is the key question. So far, other editors (e.g., see above) are not agreeing with you, and you've not made your case to those of us looking from the outside in. So, please don't start digging in and edit warring to remove content again without getting some sort of consensus. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk)

Joe, I can provide an actual Screenshot that shows Editthispge.com was a Userland site. I can also show that Winer, himself, said that Userland made the site, by refering to the creators as "we" I can show that ark agreed Userland made the site. That means they can not continue to claim Dave and not Userland ran the site. --Irelan12 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I have to go offline for a bit (work calls), but I'll respond later tonight. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

Per community discussion here, you're indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. You may appeal this sanction via UTRS or BASC. Max Semenik (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]