| Revision as of 08:16, 11 April 2007 editHu12 (talk | contribs)91,877 editsm Protected User talk:67.163.193.239: vandalism and removal of good-faith warnings ← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:17, 11 April 2007 edit undoHu12 (talk | contribs)91,877 edits Revert to revision 121893390 dated 2007-04-11 08:16:05 by Hu12 using popupsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| ==Huh?== | |||
| You can't demand that I don't post here, how else am I supposed to communicate with you. In addition, no admin blanked your page, you did. ] 07:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I am not a troll, I am a dedicated and hard working Wikipedian. Please don't group me with slime like that, thanks. ] 07:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rudeness== | |||
| I apologize if you think I attacked you or was otherwise rude. I am just frustrated by your apparent disregarding of comments that disagree with you. You seem to think inclusion of the link has won, which is not the case. Yesterday I counted 17 opinions in some form or another. | |||
| *10 for: 3 were either the users sole contributions or majority of, so if we disregard that 7 | |||
| *7 against: 2 of which were either the user's sole contributions or majority of, so if we disregard that 5 | |||
| 7 to 5 simply doesn't represent consensus. Sorry. 07:13, ] 07:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And that's only if you wanna get hyper technical, some of those rationales were pretty weak and as such generally wouldn't be included as deciding factors in consensus. Maybe read over ], it may help you see what to shoot for. ] 07:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sheesh. Real nice, you removed my comment? Why? ] 07:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you are doing at ]}}. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for ], even if they do not technically violate the ]. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR -->--] 07:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Instead of choosing to respond, you blank the page? This doesn't make sense to me. Why not respond? I wasn't rude. I was merely pointing out that there is no consensus. It would seem you are not interested at all in discussion. ] 07:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="clear: both"></div>]'''You have been {{#if:{{{1|}}}||temporarily}} ] from editing Misplaced Pages {{#if:{{{1|}}}|for a period of {{{1|}}}}} as a result of your {{#if:{{{2|}}}|disruptive edits to ]|disruptive edits}}.''' You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that ] (including page blanking or addition of ]), ], deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, ]; and repeated, blatant violations of our ] policy will not be tolerated.<!-- Template:Test5 -->--] 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock|This is getting beyond ridiculous. My talk page was blanked because of the decision of two admins, who wanted to end all of this. My edits were not disruptive. I was removing disruptive edits like the one above. I moved the discussion to his talk page, so that this would not happen again. I have not done anything disruptive. Hu12 has already been reported for banning me unfairly once before in a similiar situation.}} | {{unblock|This is getting beyond ridiculous. My talk page was blanked because of the decision of two admins, who wanted to end all of this. My edits were not disruptive. I was removing disruptive edits like the one above. I moved the discussion to his talk page, so that this would not happen again. I have not done anything disruptive. Hu12 has already been reported for banning me unfairly once before in a similiar situation.}} | ||
Revision as of 08:17, 11 April 2007
Huh?
You can't demand that I don't post here, how else am I supposed to communicate with you. In addition, no admin blanked your page, you did. IvoShandor 07:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- And I am not a troll, I am a dedicated and hard working Wikipedian. Please don't group me with slime like that, thanks. IvoShandor 07:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Rudeness
I apologize if you think I attacked you or was otherwise rude. I am just frustrated by your apparent disregarding of comments that disagree with you. You seem to think inclusion of the link has won, which is not the case. Yesterday I counted 17 opinions in some form or another.
- 10 for: 3 were either the users sole contributions or majority of, so if we disregard that 7
- 7 against: 2 of which were either the user's sole contributions or majority of, so if we disregard that 5
7 to 5 simply doesn't represent consensus. Sorry. 07:13, IvoShandor 07:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- And that's only if you wanna get hyper technical, some of those rationales were pretty weak and as such generally wouldn't be included as deciding factors in consensus. Maybe read over WP:CONSENSUS, it may help you see what to shoot for. IvoShandor 07:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh. Real nice, you removed my comment? Why? IvoShandor 07:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Hu12 07:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of choosing to respond, you blank the page? This doesn't make sense to me. Why not respond? I wasn't rude. I was merely pointing out that there is no consensus. It would seem you are not interested at all in discussion. IvoShandor 07:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Misplaced Pages as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated.--Hu12 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
67.163.193.239 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is getting beyond ridiculous. My talk page was blanked because of the decision of two admins, who wanted to end all of this. My edits were not disruptive. I was removing disruptive edits like the one above. I moved the discussion to his talk page, so that this would not happen again. I have not done anything disruptive. Hu12 has already been reported for banning me unfairly once before in a similiar situation.Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This is getting beyond ridiculous. My talk page was blanked because of the decision of two admins, who wanted to end all of this. My edits were not disruptive. I was removing disruptive edits like the one above. I moved the discussion to his talk page, so that this would not happen again. I have not done anything disruptive. Hu12 has already been reported for banning me unfairly once before in a similiar situation. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is getting beyond ridiculous. My talk page was blanked because of the decision of two admins, who wanted to end all of this. My edits were not disruptive. I was removing disruptive edits like the one above. I moved the discussion to his talk page, so that this would not happen again. I have not done anything disruptive. Hu12 has already been reported for banning me unfairly once before in a similiar situation. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is getting beyond ridiculous. My talk page was blanked because of the decision of two admins, who wanted to end all of this. My edits were not disruptive. I was removing disruptive edits like the one above. I moved the discussion to his talk page, so that this would not happen again. I have not done anything disruptive. Hu12 has already been reported for banning me unfairly once before in a similiar situation. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}