November 2014
![Stop icon with clock](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Orubel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
All facts given are true and honest. User is in ongoing legal issues over fact they are creating derivative works within copyrighted work; DMCA takedowns have been issued to Google and Linkedin and are pending. Their internal ticket system does indeed state the above and myself and my lawyers have the emails documenting this from their internal ticketing system. All statements can be backed up with documents and can be readily provided for posting.
Decline reason:
This is not the place for you to continue your legal dispute. Kuru (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2014 (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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Orubel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is not a continuation. This is a statement of fact. It is written as statement of fact and has not been created as an issue to continually edit his page... merely portray accuracies related to user. User does not wish facts to be associated with them and thus creates an ongoing war. This user has a habit of removing 'facts' he does not wish to see such as human rights violations associated with Sri Lanka (see past edits).
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:12, 7 November 2014 (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.
Well it already looks like people dont agree with your personal vendetta. Orubel (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Orubel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well according to the wikipedia guidelines, these are useful, nondisruptive, factual and not damaging; These are users own actions and statements hence why they belong on personal page and not company page. My question is are you saying a personal page is different from a corporate page? Is this better placed on their corporate page?
Decline reason:
You don't seem to have grasped the point that Wikipedia is not the place to comment about your legal dispute, no matter how justified your your position in that dispute may be. Also, none of your unblock requests has addressed the reasons for your block, which are edit warring and infringements of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. If you make another unblock request that is completely off the point, it is likely that your talk page access will be removed, to prevent more waste of administrators' time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2014 (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.
Proposed deletion of API Chaining
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article API Chaining has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- More of an essay than an encyclopaedia article, with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of API Abstraction
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article API Abstraction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- More of an essay than an encyclopaedia article, with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Code of Conduct/ Conflict of Interest WP:RFC/JamesBWatson
Upon receiving complaint from CEO of WSO2 where legal issues have been raised by myself against said company for misuse of copyrighted material owned by myself, JamesAWatson/JamesBWatson/JamesCWatson accts chose to delete said note from CEO's personal page, lock users acct and delete pages relating to my legally owned copyrighted material. These pages have reference, have been presented at conferences, and software patterns are currently used in active software products (also referenced).
the Watson acct claims no reference while reference material has been given and as acct is locked by him, pages are unable to be updated or corrected.
The Watson acct is acting outside the bounds of the code of conduct and I also suggest there may be a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orubel (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is difficult to fully understand what you are trying to say in that rather incoherent message, but I am not aware of having deleted any note from anyone's "personal page". I am also unaware of having suggested that any page related in any way to you has no references. Perhaps you can clarify that. However, what is clear is that you have evaded your block by editing without logging in. As long as your account is blocked, you do not have permission to edit Wikipedia at all, except for editing this page for the purpose of requesting an unblock, and other matters relating to the block. Because of your block evasion, I have increased the length of the block, and any edits you make while evading the block are likely to be reverted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
When you my acct is blocked and you represent one party in a legal dispute by removing content in a copyright dispute, you have a conflict of interest. By not allowing me to talk to you about this on your user page or make edits to the pages due to my block, you are violating the 'code of conduct'. I have no ability to edit these pages and have not done so and have abided by said rules but have only tried to lodge complaint or keep open dialogue with editors and follow guidelines. It is you who chooses to see the limitations of your actions as a further violation on my part. This is why complaint has been lodged against your actions and against your continuing actions. Orubel (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Api chaining, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
- It may be a waste of my time, because you seem to have a remarkable ability to fail to hear what is being said to you, but I will make one more attempt to make clear to you a fundamental point which you still seem not to have grasped. The legal dispute over copyright in which you are involved is no concern of Wikipedia's. Wikipedia is not a medium for publishing your view of this matter. Wikipedia is not a service for publishing reports of legal cases. If you continue to try to use Wikipedia to further your case in a legal dispute, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely, without further warning.
- You have been told how to request an unblock. If and when you post an unblock request which addresses the reasons for the block an administrator may unblock you. Alternatively, you can just wait for the block to expire. However, as long as the block is in place, you do not have permission from the Wikimedia Foundation to edit English Wikipedia, except for editing this page. You have already had the length of your block increased because of evasion of the block, but you have still continued to evade the block. If you evade your block again, either by editing without logging in or by using other accounts, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely, without further warning. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You seem to keep pushing this singular view but that has stopped a long time ago as the legal warring stopping (see Bbb23's edit). My only issue over the last few days is with you marking all my content to be removed and making sure I would be unable to edit it or doing anything about it... hence the request for mediation; this was rejected because I am currently blocked. I am not publishing a legal dispute. I am publishing pages on technical information that is currently being used in projects, by companies, has been shown at conferences, etc etc. You seem hung up on the dispute and have chosen to represent one party in a recent legal dispute by removing all articles. Technically representing one party in an ongoing legal dispute IS illegal in all states and by removing all content just because you don't like the formatting is not a good enough reason; there are references and these references DO meet the guidelines.
Talking to page author would be a better way, making suggestions or asking they use a template perhaps. You did not once attempt to engage author, check references... you merely saw BBB23 edit and marked other pages for deletion.
I respect the fact that you are attempting to police wikipedia and you have hundreds of pages to go through in a day but in the scientific community, if you do this quickly, you delete valuable information. And if you do this haphazardly, you quash ideas while they are being born.
My only issue over the last few days has been with you representing one side of a legal dispute by removing all content from wikipedia of the other party. As we both remain civil at the moment, you are 100% correct in the fact that I let this slide and let blocks lapse. And this is what I intend to do.Orubel (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Orubel. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, API Chaining, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
- remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
- save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes can you specify what notability guidelines this does NOT meet as specifically related to software, software design? And how this software design pattern that author was invited to present at worlds largest conference on Java Spring framework and tools (and which was videod and shared with thousands of software developers) is not notable? Is a peer review of a couple hundred people for an enterprise software development company serving millions not notable? I'm a bit confused as to what notable is in this case. Orubel (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of API Chaining for deletion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article API Chaining is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/API Chaining until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is this nominated for deletion? Orubel (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You nominated me for a multiple sock puppet because my WIFE responded on my behalf?? Are you serious? So actual human beings are sock puppets now? Thats an excuse to attack and delete an account? Orubel (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Orubel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sock puppet. My wife is responding so my work is not deleted since i cannot respond. Separate email, separate person, look us up Orubel (talk) 2:54 am, Today (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
please see WP:MEAT. If your wife is editing on your behalf, we basically treat her as though she were you. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the block stands, either directly, while logged out, under another account name or by proxy. Yunshui 雲水 12:40, 18 November 2014 (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.
- There have been no accusations of Sock Puppet activity in the AFD discussion only a stating of the fact that a Single Purpose Account had removed a Prod, as the account had made no other edits except the removal of the PROD. The article is being placed up for discussion because there is no claim to significance or established notability by Reliable sources. If your wife would like to provide input on the discussion or improve the article to include proper sources for inclusion on Wikipedia, then the discussion may allow for the article to be kept. This process allows for more editors to provide feedback and commentary on whether the article meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sock puppetry but accusations of 'block evasion' and my account was blocked entirely ...
Skamecrazy123 mentioned you on the JamesBWatson talk page in "A possible block evasion by User:Orubel ...".
And my account has the following on it now 'The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.'
NOT COOL! I have been cooperating and only responding by trying to log in to respond on editor pages (as stated in directions) or to file issues and then I get penalized. And when I have a friend help, they get penlized as well as myself. YOUR EDITORS ARE OUT OF CONTROL!. There apparently is NO wiggle room for someone honestly TRYING to cooperate and follow the directions Orubel (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies but I understand the initial block but not the contant attacks on my article page, my wife, my attempts to try and respond to editors to clarify the situation... it has been ridiculous. Orubel (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- We could have a policy that said "if you are blocked, you are not allowed to edit, but it's perfectly acceptable to get round the block by getting someone else to edit on your behalf", but we don't. Having someone else "responding so [your] work is not deleted since [you] cannot respond" is getting someone else to help you to evade your block. Also, you might like to decide definitely whether the other person who is helping you evade your block is your wife or your friend. Or have you got two people helping you evade your block? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you were honestly trying to cooperate and follow the directions, you wouldn't engage in sock/meat puppetry in order to evade your block. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
what the hell are you talking about? I had no clue about half these rules until AFTER you blocked and started marking the pages for deletion. Are you even listening to yourselves? Orubel (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ignorance is no excuse. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are coming around. Maybe when your vendetta fails, their won't be any hard feelings. Orubel (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- And maybe, when you stop breaking the rules, we can get on with making this Encyclopedia, hmm? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)