User talk:Profg: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:32, 12 January 2008 editJehochman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,282 edits →Block notice: Block notice← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:06, 13 January 2008 edit undoFairchoice (talk \| contribs)114 edits BehaveNext edit →
Line 60:		Line 60:

	Should you wish to be unblocked sooner than one month, I will consider whether you have ceased the canvassing activity. You may contact me by email, or request an independent unblock review. At the end of one month, administrators will review the situation to see if canvassing continues. If it does, the block may be extended. Sincerely, ] <sup>]</sup> 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)		Should you wish to be unblocked sooner than one month, I will consider whether you have ceased the canvassing activity. You may contact me by email, or request an independent unblock review. At the end of one month, administrators will review the situation to see if canvassing continues. If it does, the block may be extended. Sincerely, ] <sup>]</sup> 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

			==Behave==
			Start behaving! I disagree with the block because it is based on your call for others to improve wikipedia. The mob is doing just what you said, i.e. slamming you.

			I do warn you that you are not the best poster child for censorship as you haven't acted so well in the past. This gives the mob an excuse to hang you. Please behave!

			I am for fairness. I edit fairly. The film article you cite CAN be improved and made less of an attack piece. Controversial, it is. However, Wikipedians don't have to attack it. ] (]) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:06, 13 January 2008

S E M I - R E T I R E D
This user is temporarily not very active on Misplaced Pages.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Profg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for six months. He limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. --B 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Request handled by: B 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Y	WP:Removal of comments, warnings Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

Misplaced Pages:Don't restore removed comments

If an editor removes a comment from their talk page, whether the comment is legitimate or not, do not add the comment back again. Respect their wishes. It's counter-productive to force the issue.

Note that users who repeatedly restore comments to a user's talk page more than three times in a 24 hour period may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule.

AfD nomination of RHEMA Bible Training Center

I have nominated RHEMA Bible Training Center, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/RHEMA Bible Training Center. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk about you on WP:ANI

FYI, a discussion thread mentioning the proposal of blocking or banning you has been opened at WP:ANI#Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of users that support banning you from Misplaced Pages and any user that shares your viewpoint.

I would like to point out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:RS

If you or your friends write in a calm and polite manner and follow the advice in these two links, I don't support your ban. If you or your friends write in a combative manner and fail to follow the advice in these links, then that sort of participation in Misplaced Pages is not welcomed by me. I have not read any of your contributions so I have no knowledge of how you are writing. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per this discussion on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I have blocked your account for one month. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. It is clear that you are canvassing off-wiki for new editors to join the battle over several articles. Getting other people to engage in edit wars on your behalf is just as bad as doing these things yourself. You have been subject to revert limitations, and should know better.

Should you wish to be unblocked sooner than one month, I will consider whether you have ceased the canvassing activity. You may contact me by email, or request an independent unblock review. At the end of one month, administrators will review the situation to see if canvassing continues. If it does, the block may be extended. Sincerely, Jehochman 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Behave

Start behaving! I disagree with the block because it is based on your call for others to improve wikipedia. The mob is doing just what you said, i.e. slamming you.

I do warn you that you are not the best poster child for censorship as you haven't acted so well in the past. This gives the mob an excuse to hang you. Please behave!

I am for fairness. I edit fairly. The film article you cite CAN be improved and made less of an attack piece. Controversial, it is. However, Wikipedians don't have to attack it. Fairchoice (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)