User talk:69.127.11.135

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have been blocked for adding relevant information that certain biased parties would prefer be kept secret. The information regarding "ahoalton" and "Allowat's question" were properly sourced to books that have gone through dozens of editions since the early 20th century. Therefore, calling them unverifiable is not supportable. Additionally, much of the information in the OA entry comes from the OA Handbook, itself a so called "safeguarded" book. The OA Handbook is sited as a source in this article so why should the Ceremony for the Ordeal be treated any differently? Saying that information which comes from OA books is off limits just because OA members prefer it that way is self-serving and thus indefensible in a community project like Wikipedia. For example, muslims would prefer that images of the prophet not appear in the article on Mohammad, but they do."

Decline reason: "Other editors have valid concerns about the info you have added, regardless of whether or not it is referenced. If you wish to add this information, establish consensus among other editors on the talk page first. Since you have tried to use multiple reverts to return contested edits to the page over and over, this block is fully justified per the three revert rule. Good day. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Any attempt to reach consensus will fail because the majority of interested editors are themselves members of the Order of the Arrow. The editor that blocked me is a member of the Order of the Arrow. They have dominated this entire categoy and are selecting the information it contains based on their own self-interest. Of course OA members will agree to omit information they consider secret. In fact, they have pledged an oath to keep this information secret and should, in all fairness, recuse themselves from the debate on whether or not it should be included. Do we indulge this behavior from political figures who prefer certain verifiable information be kept secret? The rules of Wikipedia should be exercised uniformly and information from verifiable sources such as those I have mentioned should be admitted."

Decline reason: "Personal attacks and unfounded accusations are not going to get you anywhere. You were editwarring, hence your block. AGF my friend... AGF. — Jmlk17 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.