Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ian.joyner. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! satusuro 13:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Harris: Comments such as His modifications are therefore hypocritical.and You are basing your whole reasoning here on your lack of understanding. violate WP:NPA. Please stick to the issues and dn not attack other editors. Also, please respect WP:MOS provisions whether you agree with them or not. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Harris only reversed my absolutely correct and clarifying modifications to your initial writing implying B5700 were somehow still in existence. The rest of the article is written in past tense, but Harris did not modify those. My modifications were AS AN EDITOR to clarify that B5700 is a thing of the past and for consistency with the rest of the article. Due to an exchange on Medium we had on this subject where Harris was making incorrect assertions against Burroughs machines, which I respectfully corrected, he seems to have moved personal attacks against me onto Wikipedia. I have told him that Wikipedia is not the forum to do this.

Note I said that "His modifications are therefore hypocritical." I did not make that a personal attack — it was a comment on the modifications and this continual undoing of perfectly correct edits.

You wrote on your profile.

"I tend to be obsessive about details, and would appreciate a heads up on anything that I get wrong, even if it's minor"

Thus you look like someone who does not like their original writing being modified. Editors read what is written and put in good modifications for clarity. That is what I have done.

Elsewhere you asserted that the B6000 line was a "radically different architecture" to B5000 line. That is incorrect. B5000 and B6000 have always been in the same FAMILY of computers, like the B2000/B3000/B4000 were in the Burroughs medium system BCD line of computers.

Your experience is not much with Burroughs systems "My experience is heaviest on MVS and VM, but is not limited to IBM platforms."

Harris has said similar things. IBM as followers believe that the IBM 360 was the first continuing family of computers. However, that is disproved by the B5000 line which still exists in Unisys Clearpath MCP systems. Now IBM might or might not have intended the 360 to be the basis of a family.

I don't know that Burroughs had that view about the B5000, but it certainly became a family, was a thoroughly advanced design that has carried through to this day, whereas the 360 was a very ordinary architecture carried forward by IBM's marketing clout.

I had the feeling that since the exchange with Harris on Medium, that he has been trying to say that IBM has had the equivalent of what Burroughs had.

When he turns up on Wikipedia, undoing my edits, to enforce that point, there is something deeper going on. As I have pointed out to him again and again, Wikipedia is not the platform to wage such personal wars. Ian.joyner (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NEWP, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEWP until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Jumping to long-winded tirades on disruption just because they follow our pseudonymous username recommendations is not a reasonable assumption of good faith, even though I also despise the user in question. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling motives into question is not attacking others. I have not used ad hominem attacks or personal insults. There is far too much hiding behind pseudonyms on Wikipedia and other social media. I am calling HyperAccelerated on that. Whoever it is has very little on their contribution page, only back three years. Pseudonyms are used more to protect the guilty than the innocent.

I appreciate you are trying to cool the situation, and your profile shows some significant contributions, since 2022, and it seems you have a problem with HA as well. Indeed, if HA gets a bad reputation and is deleted, he can just come back with another account and pseudonym.

The background in the industry is that certain people that ignore the real developers of technologies so that the populist but wrong view is pushed. That is why I suspect the motives of HA and HA's suggestions for deletion follow that pattern.

I have clearly made the point. That is not a long-winded tirade. I have also made it clear why the articles that HA proposes for deletion are relevant to keep.

The guidelines are to stop frivolous activity on WP and as I have said, deleting these articles would be an injustice to WP, the contents of those articles, and the contributors to those articles who have honourable motives.

The GNG is a guideline, not an absolute. Like the other guidelines it is an indication that articles may be placed on WP for purposes of promotion or other nefarious motives. That is not the case for the articles that HA proposes for deletion. Ian.joyner (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEWP and NEWP) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 03:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned about disruption and continued. At the moment, you're only partially blocked but this is not an invitation to continue the bludgeoning and incivility or you will be further blocked. Consider this a final warning. Star Mississippi 03:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the WP page here.

"Users may be blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia."

It is me who has been defending WP from being damaged or disrupted. If you read carefully, I have been perfectly polite, even if direct. I have not engaged in personal ad hominem.

"A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism."

And I have pointed out that the deletes suggested by HA would themselves amount to vandalism.

I think I have made my point, and I will be more than disappointed if these deletions are carried out for the very thin reasons given. Ian.joyner (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 20:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Star Mississippi. Who are you anyway? It is me who has been harassed here, and blocking continues that harassment.

I gave you a perfectly polite but firm reply. I have made many good contributions to WP over nearly 20 years. HA comes along lately and his only contribution is to go around marking pages for deletion that others have spent many hours creating.

I think there is a deeper agenda going on here, and WP is just descending to a typical social media brawl if this is the way you treat you genuine editors. Ian.joyner (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you demonstrate here, you have repeatedly refused to understand that GNG is the only criteria for notability, a guideline, and nearly as concrete as a Wikipedia guideline can be. Instead of evaluating the topic based on widespread consensus, you have instead resorted to arguing long-winded points that consciously ignore and refuse such consensus (not just GNG, but also usernames and civility), doubting and attacking others' intentions, and pursuing and harassing such others. You need to recognize this before you can continue to contribute, as interactions with others are unavoidable even in content creation. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also § Personal attacks about similar behavior on another page. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been unjustly blocked due to complaining about unjustified deletions being raised on good articles that have been the hardwork of many editors. In fact, it has been me who has taken a stand against this kind of vandalism against WP.

Decline reason:

While your account is 12.5 years older than HA's, HA has 10 times the edits. Based on their arguments at AFD, they also understand Wikipedia's policies and practices better than you do. Regardless, one of Wikipedia's behavioural policies is to assume good faith, which you have not done as you questioned HA's intentions and called them a vandal in multiple AFDs. Continuing to claim you are the victim here will not win you any favours. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2025 (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.

@Significa liberdade: And who are you? WP seems to have been hijacked by these anonymous users who somehow have got themselves some power to block others. And yes, I am the one being victimised here. Where are the edits of HA? I saw no evidence of significant contributions apart from suggesting a whole lot of related posts get deleted. I very strongly objected to this activity. Now I can't even reply to people. This does not say much about the way WP is run, and it will indeed decline in quality if people like HA with a limited view get their way and then block those who oppose them. I'm disgusted.