| Revision as of 03:54, 11 February 2010 editOscarMilde (talk | contribs)48 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:26, 11 February 2010 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits Unblock declined, and Talk access disabledNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| {{unblock reviewed|The last edit I did was NOT POV, and was directly from the San Francisco Chronicle. The fact that the judge in the case is gay is a fact, not POV. There seem to be a group of people here who will revert any edits to certain homosexual related articles here, regardless what how controversial or contrary they are to their own views. These same articles appear to have been written by "same sex marriage" proponents with a slight same sex marriage POV. Certain past edits of mine might be a little POV, but even the slightest edits I have made were promptly changed. Additionally, the last edit I did hasn't even been reverted, if it was so bad.|decline=The fact is that, irregardless of how makes you look just as POV, that you're an out-and-proud ], making the content of your edits as irrelevant to whether you get unblocked as ] other people's behavior and your failure to ]. — ] (]) 07:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed|The last edit I did was NOT POV, and was directly from the San Francisco Chronicle. The fact that the judge in the case is gay is a fact, not POV. There seem to be a group of people here who will revert any edits to certain homosexual related articles here, regardless what how controversial or contrary they are to their own views. These same articles appear to have been written by "same sex marriage" proponents with a slight same sex marriage POV. Certain past edits of mine might be a little POV, but even the slightest edits I have made were promptly changed. Additionally, the last edit I did hasn't even been reverted, if it was so bad.|decline=The fact is that, irregardless of how makes you look just as POV, that you're an out-and-proud ], making the content of your edits as irrelevant to whether you get unblocked as ] other people's behavior and your failure to ]. — ] (]) 07:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)}} | ||
| {{unblock| Ok, I will not disagree with all the obvious homosexual activists on here. Please unblock, yes?}} | {{unblock reviewed| Ok, I will not disagree with all the obvious homosexual activists on here. Please unblock, yes?|decline=You've decided to not take the process seriously. Suit yourself. Your talk page access is now disabled. Write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org for any further appeals if you change your mind. ] (]) 04:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC) }} | ||
Revision as of 04:26, 11 February 2010
== February
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Again: Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate place for you to promote your point of view. When your block expires, I strongly recommend that you avoid the subject of homosexuality, or tread very, very carefully to avoid any appearance of pushing a specific point of view. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait, which edit are you talking about?OscarMilde (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would assume either of these two edits , both are obvious POV-pushing. Dayewalker (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I already got a warning for the first, and the second is not POV. It is a fact- a confirmed fact is not POV. It is written netrally and has not been reverted.
OscarMilde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The last edit I did was NOT POV, and was directly from the San Francisco Chronicle. The fact that the judge in the case is gay is a fact, not POV. There seem to be a group of people here who will revert any edits to certain homosexual related articles here, regardless what how controversial or contrary they are to their own views. These same articles appear to have been written by "same sex marriage" proponents with a slight same sex marriage POV. Certain past edits of mine might be a little POV, but even the slightest edits I have made were promptly changed. Additionally, the last edit I did hasn't even been reverted, if it was so bad.
Decline reason:
The fact is that, irregardless of how this edit makes you look just as POV, that you're an out-and-proud edit warrior, making the content of your edits as irrelevant to whether you get unblocked as WP:NOTTHEM other people's behavior and your failure to assume good faith. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
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.
OscarMilde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok, I will not disagree with all the obvious homosexual activists on here. Please unblock, yes?
Decline reason:
You've decided to not take the process seriously. Suit yourself. Your talk page access is now disabled. Write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org for any further appeals if you change your mind. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
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.