User talk:TuvolaPHD

Welcome!

Hello, TuvolaPHD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Venustas 12 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why are my edits condemned and the other person, who did the same thing, not. IN addition, you've still not addressed his bad faith personal slurr when this Fainnites called me some name. Please respond.TuvolaPHD (talk)

Notification[edit]

Sockpuppet investigation and checkuser request here. There is a space there under comments by accused parties for you to say whatever you wish. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of DPeterson (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 19 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).

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

Request reason:

What is the basis for this accusation, that is a false one? I am no sock puppet. I added material about the NCTSN, which is a US reputable group...see the links I added TuvolaPHD (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per comment by Anthony Bradbury below. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 20 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.

Can you help me understand how you constructed this addition? Have you used other accounts to edit here before? Kuru (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes it easier, IMHO no admin is going to accept that your edits are those of a new user. So why not start from there? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bemused innocence is also familiar. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]