User talk:PraxisConsensus

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Willing to consider unblock request[edit]

Hello PraxisConsensus. Blocked editors can usually request unblock, and give reasons why they should have another chance. If this possibility interests you, please reply. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would love to request an unblock. The reasons given are absurd, without merit, outside the parameters of scholastic debate, the search and dissemination of knowledge. PraxisConsensus (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

The reasons given are preposterous, devoid of reason, outside the parameters of scholastic debate, the search and dissemination of knowledge, and beyond the good faith actions of wiki participants across the globe.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but attacking other editors will lead to your request being declined. Please read the unblock request guide and try again. TN X Man 16:01, 24 October 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Nowhere have I attacked another, I have been more than civil and provided ample evidence why IBCR and the material is more than relevant to the subject at hand

Decline reason:

This does not address the reasons for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2010 (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'm not capable of unblocking you, but if I may offer a word of advice... I'd guess that any appeals would have a vastly higher success probability if you acknowledged any of the things that you did do, that the community found disruptive, and what you plan to do about such behavior in the future, instead of mentioning things that you didn't do (and may not have been accused of). This is unsolicited advice ... feel free to ignore/delete it. BigK HeX (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice from me too. Wikipedia works by cooperation. You have continually taken the line that you know what is right and so others should not oppose what you do. Whether you are "right" or not, you will not be likely to have your work accepted on Wikipedia unless you are willing to change this approach. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am willing to acknowledge my wrong doing, I would hope for a spirit of cooperation and experience, I am not sure why someone can block and delete my edits that acknowledges they have no expertise or understanding of the material in question

Decline reason:

On Wikipedia, the spirit of cooperation means that you are expected to attempt to reach a consensus on article talk pages when you have a disagreement with other editors about an article's content. It is not acceptable to use the article itself to do battle with other editors. The sole reason you are blocked is this edit warring; whether your edits are correct or incorrect is not the issue. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:51, 14 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand this, my apologies, I thought I was debating in good faith

Decline reason:

That's not the issue. The issue is your edit warring, which you still haven't addressed. If you wish to be unblocked, you should address that, and be aware that failing to do so may result in the protection of this talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:25, 25 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am long over the warring, I have apoligized, I am only focused on making Wikipedia as accurate and amazing as possible, I am only focused on precise and exact and useful content not petty issues PraxisConsensus (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your response below is not satisfactory. You seem either unwilling or unable to detail how you would react in the future if found yourself being reverted. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2010 (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.

Saying you are "over the warring" is not really what we are looking for. Could you please state what you would do in the future if you found your edits being reverted? We need to see that you understand and agree to comply with our policy on edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin may lift this block if they consider that their personal unblock criteria are satisfied. I note that the editor has removed some messages from his talk page that show more details about the dispute at Austrian School and Economics. One of his reverts that I found troubling was this one from October 5. He continued to re-insert a reference by Justin Ptak more than a dozen times, after it had been reverted by other editors. The discussion on the talk page suggested that others did not believe it to be a reliable source. He was inserting this as a reference for the lead sentence in Austrian School. Using WP:RSN could be an option, but the main issue is that PraxisConsensus should wait to persuade the other editors before reinserting his version. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready and always willing to comply with all rules and regulations. I have been for months, I only seek a dialogue to make Wikipedia stronger and more robust. I will abide by all rules, I only sought a scholarly discussion from the beginning if someone found fault in my additions. I understand the rules completely now and hope our cooperation can bear much fruit as I have much knowledge I am willing to share and would like to learn from scholars such as yourself as well. PraxisConsensus (talk)

{{unblock|I am no longer interested in any disputes only scholarly exchange and will abide by all the Wiki rules that I have read and quite adequately learned PraxisConsensus (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

That's quite enough. You say you understand the rules yet utterly fail to respond to repeted requests to detail specifically what you would do if reverted again. I have revoked your ability to appeal in this manner. If you wish to contest this block further you will need to contact the Arbitration Committee by email as detailed at WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]