| Revision as of 06:22, 11 November 2007 edit24.19.33.82 (talk) thanks Daniel← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:34, 11 November 2007 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,284 edits moving in conversationNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| : ''']''' 05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | : ''']''' 05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Yes, it is. Thanks,Daniel.] 06:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ::Yes, it is. Thanks,Daniel.] 06:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Your block== | |||
| Mr. Hochman, I'd be curious to hear why you chose to block me as an "abusive sockpuppet" without leaving a message on my talk page, or making any attempt to communicate with me.] 06:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Because you were posting ]. Don't do it any more, and you will be fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:34, 11 November 2007
 Y
|
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Request handled by: — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC) |
- You were editing in order to elicit a negative response. Many people would consiter that to be trolling. It's not helpfull to the on-going process of improving the encyclopedia. Please don't do it any more... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't my intention to elicit a negative response, but to wryly observe: The reason why participants are having a difficult time with the wording is because they're trying to find a policy which allows their own socks, and those of their friends, while disallowing socks of those they dislike. Some of the participants are themselves sockpuppets. The red lines that are being proposed, such as participating in mainspace, but not project discussions, are just random tangential facts which are being reified as a substitute for what is actually desired: a trusted (by itself) in-group which can use socks freely, and an out-group which can't. The fact that this observation was removed and led to a block only supports this interpretation. Posting under an IP is not "abusive sockpuppetry" when there is no active usernamed account or evasion involved. To suggest that administrators should stop trying to rig the system and follow what they ask of others - or stop asking it - shouldn't be controversial.24.19.33.82 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
{{unblock|Thanks, Rlevse, for granting my unblock request. However, I'm still blocked.}}
- Fixed now? Daniel 05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Thanks,Daniel.24.19.33.82 06:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Your block
Mr. Hochman, I'd be curious to hear why you chose to block me as an "abusive sockpuppet" without leaving a message on my talk page, or making any attempt to communicate with me.24.19.33.82 06:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because you were posting flamebait. Don't do it any more, and you will be fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. - Jehochman 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)