This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Attachment therapy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd added to the article was factual, within Wikipedia guidelines for being sourced or supported or referenced, and was certainly not a violation of a Point of view policy....so what was wrong with stating that since the publication of the report that there have been several new publications and then citing those in support of the factually true statement that there have been further developments/publications? SouthernBell555 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note well: you were not blocked for your edits. You were blocked for being a sockpuppet of DPeterson.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that simply is just not true. I made one addition that seemed relevant and acceptable and I am blocked for no reason. Seems to me that is a Point of view violation. What is your basis for saying I am a sock-puppet? I deny the accusation. SouthernBell555 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]