User talk:Greenlakes

July 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to English contract law, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for spam, advertising, or promotion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Mentifisto 13:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Dear Sirs

I would like to draw your attention to the fact it was not my intention to distribute spam nor was it a disruptive edit.

Actually I just added a couple of links deemed relevant leading to original and fully referenced articles written by me. They were placed on the relevant pages on Wikipedia (at the bottoms as references). I just wanted to import more verified and professionally written articles into this part of Wikipedia so as its readers could obtain a proper info still written in rather plain language. I appreciate that the readers may be students or ordinary members of general public. Equally, I believe they should be able to obtain the best info on the subject of what is freely available on the Web. As an author I just wanted to provide a free access to my articles for everyone reading here thereby contributing to the cause of Wiki.

I would appreciate if you could unblock my account upon this request. In turn, I undertake to study your guidelines very closely so not to breach them inadvertently in the future. Should you need any further verification to make sure it is not spam please contact me direct at v.amosovas@russian-services.com.

Thank you. Yours faithfully, Vitalijus Amosovas, LLB, LLM (Essex), MCIArb}}

Welcome!

Hello Greenlakes, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Ironholds (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi there.

I've unblocked you, since it does seem like a bit of a misunderstanding. I hope we can avoid this sort of thing in future!

You might want to read Wikipedia:External links before adding links to articles in future, and if you want to avoid even the appearance of spam, suggesting them on the article's discussion page or running them past another user is a good idea. We'd be thrilled to have you contribute content rather than simply pointers to outside material - our English law articles are really a bit of a mess, and a lot of them could do with expert attention/

If you've any questions, please do ask myself or Ironholds (talk · contribs), who left a welcome message above; we'll try to help. Shimgray | talk | 15:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reblock

I have reverted your most recent edits, and am applying for a block. I have explained to you in our conversations that your site is not a reliable source, cannot be used on Wikipedia and that you would be best keeping it off this site. You were unblocked, and immediately began sticking your site back into various pages. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Hello guys. The first time I was blocked I was definitely wrong as did not read your guidelines. Then I read them and also used the advice received from two of your admins. Thus, this time I did not add any bare links to an external site as such. On the contrary, I did provide my personal contribution 100% relevant to the material and that was placed in a proper place and if you read the text I wrote you will see how my writing directly follows from and compliments what had been written before me. That was not an abstract writing - I was actually adding extra piece of knowledge on the subject. There was no spam link at all. I just provided citation to pinpoint the piece of legal knowledge I added to the Wiki article. The link was a direct one to a professional article (fully referenced and original)which provided extra insight for the piece I added. It was not a link to a site or directore but a direct link to a full version of the source I used for my contribution. If this was wrong again I just do not know what to do. As a lawyer I just wanted to provide my contribution and add more good content and I do believe this second time I did everything within the rules. You welcomed proper contributions on th esubject and I provided. I do not understand your reaction this time as I thought you woul db ehappy with my real contribution. Many thanks for your attention}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - Philippe 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't tend to like fully original works. I told you that your site was completely inappropriate as a reference. Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the original article you will see it is founded on multiple sources.Just look at the list of references and the text itself. If this is still unfounded or 100% "original research" in your view I am afraid you are wrong to say that. I am sorry to say there is a lot of crap here and there without proper verification, citation or the like. I do not understand why you are so adverse towards this particular contribution. Probably I need to explain for your reference the thing that original articles were published in a number of university publications which are not freely available. Then some of them were re-written in more abbreviated form and in a more readeable language to become free versions. What is the problem here?

About "my site" - this is actually a site of one of the companies for whom I am a one of the directors. This is not my personal site. What is more that was not a link to the site or a directory this time it was a direct page to the article. In the directory we will publish a number of other articles written not only by me by also by my colleagues worldwide. By dealing with Wikipedia we wanted to provide our input + links to freely availble articles - not many of them are available for free. And the main text of those articles can also be found on the databases only. There is no point to add that citation(which you would probably prefer)as that will not help to a real reader as they will in no way be able to obtain a copy say of a University of Essex internal publication or a professional Australian database which contains one of the articles but only in electronic form. Does this provide better explanation now why I put a link to the full text in a reference to the chapters I was adding? Or was it the content that you did not like? I have been trying to co-operate and you should see the difference between my first edits and the second batch. Please tell me if I can contribute at all if you revert everything I do including relevant pieces of actual knowledge I was adding to those Wiki articles.

It's because you are blatantly violating our external links policy by repeatedly posting a site which you yourself admit to having relations with. In addition to that you added information that has consistently violated WP:COI, WP:OR, and WP:V. Also please don't try to evade your block by using sockpuppets, whether it's a work computer or proxy site, as it can be detected fairly easily, and oftentimes simply through editing habits alone. You were obviously in control of User:58.68.50.18. GraYoshi2x►^talk 19:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I really do not understand you guys. You did not like the links to full text articles written by a professional lawyer and read by many other professional people over the time. I explained that as a first-time contributor I made a mistake and that I had no ulterior intent only my desire to provide some input to this cause. To prove that and show good will I consulted Ironholds and Shimgray again and then I invested my time in writing some paragraphs and chapters so to logically continue what was written immediately before. And you deleted that again as unsourced things (although Ironholds viewed an example and confirmed it was fine) - I do not know who you are Mr/Ms GraYoshi2x but you know my credentials and you know that there are a lot of sources to verify my writing. I wanted to help you for free but apparently you guys are doing some edit wars even between yourself let alone new contributors and thus you live and fight in your own virtual world and do not need any valuable contribution at all. Otherwise, how can you explain why the chapter called Causation: law and science compared in the article I tried to improve having no references/sources at all is still there whereas all the pieces of extra knowledge added by me have been relentlessly and automatically deleted??? Well, if do not want a lawyer helping you then you are free to write everything youself and keep calling me an indef blocked user instead of unblocking and trying to engage me in your stuff. You should appreciate this fact that I am not all about external links at all as this time I added none and only wrote enciclopedic things precisely on the subject. Many thanks. I hope there is somebody who is not all about edit wars and riling at new authors and who can understand other people, communicate and cooperate with them properly.

WP:COI & WP:OR, please read them. Citing your own published works isn't a reliable source; it's just your word against every other man's word. Stop with the sockpuppeting too, unless you wish to eventually be listed on Wikipedia:Long term abuse. It's getting pretty apparent now that you're only trying to disrupt Wikipedia by advertising your site through "citations" all over the place. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed; User:Breathing Dead, is that you? GraYoshi2x►^talk 19:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that the user name mentioned above is not associated with me. So if you wish to investigate that further then please do as you may wish to prevent him. You can take my word for that and I hope this will help you in fighting unwelcome stuff. I can also confirm that I used corporate network trying to correct my previous mistakes and provide some valuable input without links. That included a chapter on consideraton in English law supported by citation of 2 legal cases. I can tell you that chapter with cases was checked by Ironholds and he said it was OK. I can also assure you that I do not want to disrupt anything here at all. If you do not want to have any of my contribution then you are free to find other authors. I did make some mistakes from the outset but there are at least 2 cases where you were also clearly wrong. First case is the one already mentioned - go and ask Ironholds about Consideration in English law chapter with 2 cases cited to support this chapter. Clearly it was a proper writing looked at and approved by Ironholds although it is a bit odd that he (who seems to be a student) has a last word in approving or disapproving of what is published by an international lawyer with 2 law degrees and serious legal qualification). And second case where you cannot be right (as this is not up to you or Ironholds to decide) - is the list of Essex alumni - without any site links I have the right to be there at least due to my actual credentials and there are people who will edit that again and again in full compliance with Wikipedia rules. If any person be it my colleague or a member of public addd my info there without any external links that is no offence. People are free to decide not you whether others like me deserve to be there. There some people in some countries who want to find me there and if say a guy from Russia will list me and you delete there will be others who will include that again. Those are not my acts and if there are not breaches such as adding external links you cannot delete that stuff only because one user (me) was once blocked. I also believe that some of my input was fine and was deleted only for the reason of being written by a previously blocked user. This is a wrong tactics as I actually wnted to show my good will and intention by providing new chapters and paragraphs without links. Anyway, please rest assured that I will not spend my time here any more unless you come more cooperational than confrontational. This is still a case of misunderstanding as I am not vandalising here at all, I never deleted any word written by someone else and I was accurate and well-founded in my own writing. Just look carefully how many chapters, articles and statements here are clearly unsourced here even in articles on legal issues. If you are interested then look at this page as I cited one example above but you ignored it nor did you explain why that unsourced and unreferenced chapter still stays published. Thanks for your time and if you or somebody else of this community want to cooperate then just let me know and help me to doo that in the way you accept.

Please actually read through Wikipedia policy before rambling on about this stuff. We're all equal here; you don't get any special status just because you have two degrees and a "serious legal qualification". If an administrator unblocks you I'm pretty sure you're just going to go back to writing pure original research and WP:COI statements. Our goal is to be neutral, not scare away readers with biased information only lawyers can fully understand. You've already abused sockpuppets to spam your website URL and insert POV statements, so it's unlikely you will ever be unblocked as it is still clear all you wish to do is disrupt the site. The site you were spamming has already been blacklisted anyways. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, this is your personal opinion and is wholly inappropriate on Wikipedia. You've already shown complete ignorance of the policies we have here on WP (a very important one that you blatantly violated is WP:SOCK) so it's highly doubtful you'll be given a second chance. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just ignoring everyone here as shown by this edit. Do it once more and I might just submit a report at the administrators' noticeboard.

Key word: List of notable people. You're not exactly notable for anything, are you? GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

can you have a look here [1]- this is what I actually meant above not the link you reviewed. You should appreciate this one was a really good input within the rules, substantiated,looked at and agreed by your mate Ironholds. you should not fight people based on pre-conceptions and delete everything undiscriminately. Also to clarify I am not using socks there are other people around who knows me and who are now disgusted with your treatment - if they keep adding my name to Essex page then please talk to them they are in Russia, Australia and in Europe. I am personally in England and I am not adding any stuff any longer to WP at least untill you decide to unblock and ask me to write something. However, I admit again there are now some people who are very unhappy about your cleansing the Essex page and they will keep reverting you too. I am very sorry for that as I personally do not want any confrontation and will be patiently waiting for your unblock and offer of cooperation.

I'm not an administrator, I'm not his "mate", and nowhere did Ironholds say that he approved of it. Again just because you have two degrees in law doesn't mean that your word is fact and that we all listen to you. Again please read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before saying completely irrelevant things. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds provided that advice in his email so you can check and see I am not lyong here and I am always utterly honest even if you can use thei against me. He has some understanding in law (actually I think he is a 3rd year law student as he wrote in his email) and he liked this my attempt at writing in WP. I do not understand why you keep calling that irrelevant if you have no expertise in this. What I would like to ask just please cool down - I will read you guidelines more in depth when I have time. Please leave Essex page as there is nothing against the rules if there is no external links which may seem dubious. Please have a look at my Linkedin profile to see how many IT companies in Russia alone I am connected with and who those companies are. This way you will understand that no point to conflict with numerous people who want to keep me on Essex page.

For the third time please read WP:COI. It'll give you all the answers to your questions. I have no way to check someone's email either. You're also supposed to read the policies and guidelines immediately after you sign up, at the very least the basics; do you go around posting on a forum before you read the rules, and then realize you've done something wrong? I don't see why a lawyer should ignore Wikipedia "laws" especially as you've been taught specifically about law. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You can ask Ironholds to see for yourself I was trying to rectify my own omissions and he in fact approved that chapter. Anyway, thanks for your time. Let's leave all as it is although I would still like to be unblocked and cooperate with your community in the future.