User talk:Ahnalira

Welcome!

Hello, Ahnalira, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Just H 17:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox edition

I noticed you were starting to edit the sandbox edition, feel free to make sweeping changes to this article in anyway you feel justified you don't have to do it piecemeal as we would on the live article. By the way your changing a direct quote from the AP when you add "psychologist." Probably not a good idea. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I didnt' realize that was a direct quote. Sorry. However, it does speak to the veracity of the reference. A pychotherapist (the woman quoted) is a graduate degree in Psychology which is a Master of Ats. A Psychologist (which I am) is a PhD...still not medical. The only medical professional who deals with emotionality is a pyschiatrist. So the referencing article is wrong. I will make the other changes to the live page then. I am still learning my way around this system and just wanting to be as respectful as possible--Ahnalira (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, loved your reference for the opening statement of the third paragraph. Well done, imho--Ahnalira (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I am doing my best to collaborate on the Law of Attraction page to bring it to a standard of npov and WP:SOURCE It seems I am obstructed by another editor and his friend whose biases refuses to allow divergent representation. I am still learning the Wikipedia system, but my intentions are good, and I am doing my best to work collaboratively, but I don't know what to do when there is 'no give and take'. How do I proceed?--Ahnalira (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• You can file a WP:RFC or talk to the user, or ask a more experienced user for a third opinion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said, WP:RFC should help. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A tip and a plea to please use it

Discussion are getting difficult to follow, one way to make it a lot easier to see whats going on is with indented comments. This is accomplished by putting a ":" in front of the comment. Examples: Comment A :Reply to Comment A ::Reply to reply :::Reply to reply to reply ::Reply to reply :Reply to Comment A Comment B

Which when rendered looks like:

Reply to Comment A

Reply to reply

Reply to reply to reply

Reply to reply

Reply to Comment A

Comment B

See how much easier that is to follow? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh the nowiki tag is making it hard to render, view this comment in an editing box to see if you need to. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

3rr violation

Your harassment 3rr violation complaint against me is formatted completely wrong, I suggest you look closer at how it is suppose to be presented. For example, you must link to the specific diff for each supposed revert. Not just a copy and paste of the history log of the file. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at the COI Noticeboard

Hello Ahnalira. Your name has been mentioned at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You are welcome to join the discussion and add your own opinion there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would love to come participate, Ed, but I've been erroneously accused of sock puppetry and banned from editing for a month. Hopefully, this will be resolved as soon as somone takes the time to check IPs. Four others were banned as well, mistakenly, since they aren't my sock puppets. Three of us are actively participating on the Esther Hicks' biography, and it will skew the discussion considerably to eliminate our participation just because we happen to agree.

On the topic of Conflict of Interest, I am forthcoming and straightforward as evidenced by my User page. I could have come in surepticiously and did not. I can tell you this - I am doing my best to bring the Biography of Esther Hicks to a place that respects her privacy before legal action is taken. My intentions are honorable and my behavior integrous.--Ahnalira (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I find your claim of privacy to be strange and disingenuous. Material that you publish on her web site was removed from this article. What does that have to do with her privacy? You were asked to clarify which material infringed on her privacy. You have not yet pointed out which material was private. Bhimaji (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to kick you while you are down or anything, but I suggest you be very carefully about brandishing around terms like "legal action is taken." It is awfully close to a legal threat, and that will land you in more trouble than a sock puppet. Good luck. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As always, I am genuine and authentic about who I am and what I am about, Tmtoulouse. I participate in good faith. What I don't understand is why you are here on my Talk page participating in a conversation between me and an administrator.--Ahnalira (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Merely to tell you that making threats of legal action is not a good idea. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, I would advise you to read WP:LEGAL. Summing up, legal threats are not allowed on wikipedia, and "before legal action is taken" is approaching that point, especially since you have an admitted connection to the party. Dayewalker (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't post anywhere except on this page (until the mistake is rectified) where I am trying to talk to an admin in good faith. You are posting inaccurate and spurious statements about me on the Esther Hicks Talk page that don't contribute to the editing of the article AND coming here to continue to engage in an argumentative fashion... for what purpose? I know why I'm here - to help work out a solution to a problematic page. Please stop harrassing.--Ahnalira (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for one month

Further to the evidence at Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ahnalira, I have blocked your account for 1 month for sock puppetry. When the block expires, please edit Wikipedia constructively, and without utilising alternative accounts for disruptive purposes or to further your own position in the article.

Whilst the block is in place you may contact me using the details at user:AGK/Contact/Email. To appeal this block, you may email Unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org, supplying them with your enwiki account name; or, you can use the instructions here.

Regards, Anthøny 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not utilizing alternative accounts. Please check IPs. I will appeal. Thanks.--Ahnalira (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

IPs are not the only criteria. You're a webmaster; I'm sure you can quickly and easily work from different IP addresses. Personally, within about 10 minutes I could probably post from five different IP address blocks in two countries. With a phone call or email to a friend, I could add at least two more countries and probably four more. Most techies I know could do something similar. (Well, maybe not the international contacts. But definitely geographical IPs in different regions.) Bhimaji (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference between you and me, then, is that I don't do that kind of thing. I didn't have to post that I am a web developer and the webmaster at abraham-hicks.com on my User page. I did that because I am an honest person. My integrity speaks for itself.--Ahnalira (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

changing {{unblock}} to {{unblock}}.

changing {{unblock}} to

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is a mistake. Please check IPs. I’ve been falsely accused of sock-puppetry. This is a false accusation. It appears that 4 others have been falsely blocked as well as result of this mistake. Three of us are actively involved on the Talk page of Esther Hicks’ biography, and it skews the conversation to remove 4 independent voices just because they happen to agree. What do you need from me to help establish that I am not using sock puppets?

Decline reason:

You came to Wikipedia, not to make the encyclopedia better, but to make sure that an article in which you have a conflict of interest showed a person who is important to you personally in a positive light. It's easy to understand why you would do that, but Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines ask us all to avoid writing in such areas, or if we absolutely must, to be very, very careful to write from a position of strict neutrality. While we understand that new users don't always know how to do that, right now, you are disrupting the encyclopedia enough that it's time for you to take a break from editing and make sure you understand the rules. As to those four other users, they aren't quite 'independent,' are they? If there's anything you want to say that would clarify their relationship with you, you can feel free, but if they really are independent people who came here because you asked them, to carry out the edits you wanted made, then it is still against the rules- you win an editing dispute by the strength and correctness of your ideas, not by outnumbering those who disagree with you- recruiting users who don't know our rules and are dedicated to carrying our your mission is extremely disruptive, and so is operating multiple accounts. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thanks for your response. While I have apparently made the mistake of COI, I did it innocently as a new user. I believe my User page proves that I am forthright in my presence. Unfortunately, because I was mistakenly banned I wasn't able to dialogue with anyone about the mistake I made. I tell you in all honesty, that I am not a puppeteer, and I did not direct anyone to edit or dialogue in a certain way. I am responsible for my edits. People I don't know and haven't interacted with are banned as a result of conjecture and assumption. If you had taken the time to investigate before taking action, we could have had a real dialogue about what my honest mistake truly is. I request that someone please edit away the section that says "Sockpuppet Confirmed" on the discussion page. It is inaccurate (The more accurater term would be "Sockpuppet Conjectured and Assumed", and it constitutes a personal attack. Thank you for your help.--Ahnalira (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Even if you aren't a sock, this borders on a legal threat. — Blueboy96 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

Blueboy 96, I make no threats. Just an honest request that deserves consideration since I can see by reading the Discussion page for the article that one of the editors banned has already been re-instated, thereby proving the "confirmation" statement is false--Ahnalira (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A few corrections. You were not blocked mistakenly, nor were you blocked based on conjecture and assumption. You were blocked after discussion, based on strong evidence including editing patterns and technical data, which is very reliable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What an incredible game Wikipedia is! Please accept my apologies for assuming I would get a fair hearing. Clearly my mistake. This must be why no one (except me in my naivete) uses their real names... That was my mistake as well; if I had been less forthcoming and more surrepticious like everyone else, I would have fit into the culture here better.

So, while I agree that I've made several mistakes in contributing to this genre, I hold steady in the truth that I did in no way practice sock-puppetry. I recommend you review your standards to meet a more stringent neutrality.

I understand better now why my associates in Academia dismiss Wikipedia as an unreliable source for information. But it is an interesting game. Have fun!--Ahnalira (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)