| Revision as of 21:09, 24 January 2006 editTznkai (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,985 editsm Reverted edits by Conrad-14 year old socialist (talk) to last version by Sycthos← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:01, 23 March 2006 edit undoRgulerdem (talk | contribs)1,773 edits →Wiki 4 Christ Spam | ||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| align="center" class="notice noprint" id="block" style="background: #ffe1a7; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.1em; margin: 0.5em auto;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | ] | |||
| | style="padding: 0.1em" | | |||
| '''''You have been ]''''' in accordance with ] for violating policy against ]. To contest this block, please reply here on your '''talk page''' or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from ].<br> | |||
| :''Note to ]:'' Unblocking yourself should almost ''never'' be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator. | |||
| |} | |||
| ---- | |||
| Talk page | Talk page | ||
| Line 7: | Line 16: | ||
| ==Wiki 4 Christ Spam== | ==Wiki 4 Christ Spam== | ||
| After discussion on ] in which there was broad support for a block for your disruptive activities with respect to various AfD discussions, I'm blocking you for 48 hours. You may be blocked again if you resume disruptive activities. --]|] 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | After discussion on ] in which there was broad support for a block for your disruptive activities with respect to various AfD discussions, I'm blocking you for 48 hours. You may be blocked again if you resume disruptive activities. --]|] 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| We started a proposal ] to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal. | |||
| Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely. | |||
| Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further. | |||
| If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page ] with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well... | |||
| Thanks in advance. ] 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:01, 23 March 2006
|
You have been blocked in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating policy against sockpuppetry. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.
|
Talk page
Suspected is an understatement. Jason, are you really that dim, or are you so arrogant as to think no one would snag you? Go ahead, report this a a personal attack. Please. Jim62sch 01:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, suspected is an understatement. Wiggie, I would advise you to admit that you are Jason. You virtually did so on my talk page already. AvB ÷ talk 15:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Wiki 4 Christ Spam
After discussion on WP:AN/I in which there was broad support for a block for your disruptive activities with respect to various AfD discussions, I'm blocking you for 48 hours. You may be blocked again if you resume disruptive activities. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics
Hi,
We started a proposal Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.
Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.
Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.
If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...
Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)