| Revision as of 07:06, 26 February 2007 editGordonWatts (talk | contribs)4,767 edits Per , I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:34, 29 January 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (389 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{unblock reviewed|1= reading AN I notice that advocating the gets you a second chance. While I'm only blocked for socking to make constructive edits (after a period of madness five months ago that did get me rightly block for incivility and harassment), I would like to make the following offer. I'll be happy to consider, maybe considering considering thinking about considering being an editor who edits to advocate the statutory rape of children. I will seriously consider such a thing once the universe ends. If I could be appointed a pro-pedophile mentor - maybe I could be turned around and make the sorts of edits that allow for banning/unbanning on a regular basis. I cannot swear that I would not make thousands of constructive edits in many other topics areas as I have done in the past. --<span style="font-family: Mistral">]</span> 02:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)|decline=You are blocked for harrassing others. It is beyond me why you think that, under these circumstances, an unblock request that attacks other users will even be read more than fleetingly. — <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| == hello == | |||
| Because I find it funny - I was blocked five months ago for a week of madness and this puts me beyond the pale. Even though my accounts just try to edit constructive, tried to find out what sort of conditions I'd have to adhere to and got nowhere. Advocate of statutory child rape? no problem, come right in! I find the disparity ''hilarious''. | |||
| Re : OMG! ] <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == A note re: ] == | |||
| == Welcoming new users == | |||
| Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the ] ''(formerly Rorschach inkblot test)'' talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at ] or leave a note at ]; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at ]. Longer statements may be made ] or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made ]. Best regards, –]] 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] nomination of ] == | |||
| Thank you for welcoming {{user|BLACK ACE OF THE SPADES}}. (If you would like to, there is a ] you might like to join.) However, please remember to "subst:" your welcomes (for example, <code><nowiki>{{subst:Welcome}}</nowiki></code>), as that makes them (a) seem more personal and less artificial, and (b) reduces server load when the template is changed. Diff is . | |||
| ]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]"). | |||
| Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
| And as for , I wholly support it. WeniWidiWiki is ]ing the n00bs in every respect. | |||
| You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. | |||
| Cheers, '']'' ] 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : "subst:" substitutes the template (see ]). In other words, when you use <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki>, the wikitext stays at <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki>; however, substing the template, <nowiki>{{subst:welcome}}</nowiki>, puts the actual wikitext of the template into the article instead of simply the template. My, I'm not good at explaining things :). '']'' ] 06:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| My previous edits kept disappearing and I checked the most recent round of edits and ] keeps reverting the edits people make to the entry removing necessary edits that have been made (the one that got my attention was my clarfiyign the Barb Wire link of all things). These reverts were also removing your edits which all seemed perfectly reasonable within the pages remit. So I have reverted their last revert but it'd be worth keeping a beady eye on the entry as it could get into ] territory and doing such sweeping reverts of good faith edits with no explanation is vandalism so needs to be stopped. I have left the first vandalism warning on their page so feel free to add the next one if you are first on the scene and if they do the same thing revert the entry or we are going to be caught doing one step forward and two back and nothing actually gets done. I'll also leave a note on the Comics Project page so other people can keep an eye on it too. (] 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Business and Economics== | |||
| Hi. Good job archiving it - I feel stupid I didn't do it now, long overdue! Just remember when your archiving to leave a link to that archive, I've done it now. I couldn't agree more about "waking this project up". Let me know if I can help you getting this project back on its feet. ] 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Your timing is extraordinary: I just hit "save" on this: ]. | |||
| Thank you for the note. --] | ] 13:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I answered your question here; Indeed, I ''haven't'' edited in a long time; I was referring to article pages; Of course, there may be ongoing talk...so, yeah, I don't count discussion/talk pages; See my reply, where I prove I am correct by the diffs -.--] 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==My RfA== | |||
| ] has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re: Em..== | |||
| Good catch, I looked over that twice and didn't catch that. Yeah, I meant to say "500 word maximum"...not sure what I was trying to type. Sometimes I will delete an entire line, rewritting it, and sometimes a word gets left in from the rewritten line. Sorry about that...I have corrected it. Have a good rest of your weekend...] <sup>(] - ])</sup> 19:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Per , I have initiated ] action against you == | |||
| Per , I have initiated ] action against you. ''Observe:'' | |||
| ] | |||
| --] 07:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:34, 29 January 2022
Fredrick day (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
reading AN I notice that advocating the statutory rape of children gets you a second chance. While I'm only blocked for socking to make constructive edits (after a period of madness five months ago that did get me rightly block for incivility and harassment), I would like to make the following offer. I'll be happy to consider, maybe considering considering thinking about considering being an editor who edits to advocate the statutory rape of children. I will seriously consider such a thing once the universe ends. If I could be appointed a pro-pedophile mentor - maybe I could be turned around and make the sorts of edits that allow for banning/unbanning on a regular basis. I cannot swear that I would not make thousands of constructive edits in many other topics areas as I have done in the past. --Fredrick day 02:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for harrassing others. It is beyond me why you think that, under these circumstances, an unblock request that attacks other users will even be read more than fleetingly. — Sandstein 05:55, 1 August 2008 (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.
Because I find it funny - I was blocked five months ago for a week of madness and this puts me beyond the pale. Even though my accounts just try to edit constructive, tried to find out what sort of conditions I'd have to adhere to and got nowhere. Advocate of statutory child rape? no problem, come right in! I find the disparity hilarious.
A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)