((warning|This is not the place to appeal a block. Rather, it is a discussion page on policy. If you wish to appeal a block, go to the ((Admin Noticeboard.))

IN China, the government has blocked us from accessing Wikipedia. When I go onto an anonymous surfing program, Wikipedia doesn't permit me to edit any articles. :( ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Probably because the IP used by the anonymizer was used at one time by a vandal. -Dandaman32 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Name: dvdhws1939. : I find myself blocked and can not understand why. I have made 2 contributions in the past week (they were my first) and both have been accepted. 1. A minor change to the entry for Dick White. 2. A new entry regarding Dick Forsman the ornathologist. I found myself blocked when I attempted to add a minor detail to information about my home town. Why? 15:05 21/08/2006

User Name: Rosser1954. can anyone out there tell me why I have been blocked? How do I find out the reason - nothing comes to mind or fits with your list of reasons for blocking. How does one contact the LOcal Administrator?

As I have stated on your talk page, your user account is not blocked. If it were, you would not be able to post here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user name Mikefreeman. I have been blocked for attempting to correct a vandalised article on the Ben Dover page. Some has deleted the truth that the persons appearing in Truth or Dare [made by myself]are Lyndsay Honey and paula Meadows. The block said that I have vandalised the page under the name of Ganeesh or whatever! I don't know how this person could represent me or use my IP address. How do I get unblocked? Mike Freeman http://eroticartist.co.uk

Dear Sirs,

My name is Edward Lynch. I am originally from the United States and currently living in Taiwan. I have just moved into a new apartment where the internet connection is under the landlord's name and has been active during the tenure of at least two of the previous tennants. I have recently found that I have been blocked by an administrator who goes by the handle of Golden Wattle. I attempted to email this administrator but have found that I am unable to inquire as to why I have been blocked because I have been blocked. I am aware that the online community in Taiwan has a poor reputation and that perhaps many users of this same ISP have behaved badly in the past. I have never posted or edited anything on Wikipedia before. The reason for blocking me that was displayed -- "vandalism -- has been warned before" -- clearly does not apply to me. I would appreciate it very much if I could contact any pertinant administrator directly to settle this issue. My email address is tedwlynch@hotmail.com. Thank you.203.79.253.1 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be merged, it should be discussed at WP:BP, this information was recently created - not moved from a policy page. Therefore, it is not policy yet, even if the information on it is consistant with policy - if that makes sense. Fresheneesz 03:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid it does not. Codifying current practice is a valid way (and arguably, the best way) to create policy. And why shouldn't it be merged, btw? >Radiant< 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only valid way to create policy is through consensus. And this page shouldn't be merged without it. Fresheneesz 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing that you seem not to understand is that the common outcome of a common process does equate to consensus. >Radiant< 20:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the view of a minority on what that outcome is, is not neccessarily consensus - and i'd feel much better if this information were proposed on the talk page of WP:BP before it is added. Fresheneesz 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((sofixit)). >Radiant< 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who obviously wants to merge it - so YOU fix it. However, since you suggest it, i'll not be lazy, and oblige to put a small note on BP's page. Fresheneesz 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a minority view - this is the way things work (see lists of blocked people, and related cats and newsfeeds). Asserting that things aren't consensual because they might not have been discussed as much as you like isn't very helpful. Do you have any objection to the substance of this policy? >Radiant< 16:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m, not really. Sorry, i'm being a jerk. Fresheneesz 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my comments here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just got onto my wikipedia and i tried to create a new article but as soon as i had done so i found my self with a warning over vandalism.The next day i turned on my p.c i logged on and found that i had been given a final warning during the night,the warning stated that i had vandalised agian and is threatining to block me!

• (moved to WP:ANI; this page explains how to appeal a block but is not in itself a forum for doing so). >Radiant< 08:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomananda is unfairly blocked. He exhausted his 3 reverts on this page but he did not violate the 3RR rule. I contacted the admin that blocked him the following is his response. What is more fair is that Olaf Stephanos who had just as many reverts on that page was not blocked. Please unblock Tomananda. --Yueyuen 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. Edit warring is prohibited. Also, the threshhold for information on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability; Wikipedia is not the place to reveal "the truth" except through reliable sources. Please also read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk • 07:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: the threshold is not just Verifiability but also Neutral Point of View, which should be attained by due discussion and consensus (in case of dispute). A good article is not just a list of facts, no matter how well documented they are. --Sugaar 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]