| Revision as of 17:30, 16 June 2010 editDusanSK (talk | contribs)6 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:31, 16 June 2010 edit undoDusanSK (talk | contribs)6 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ::Because it was the correct argumentation(] (]) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)) | ::Because it was the correct argumentation(] (]) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)) | ||
| ::What about this argumentation from the opposite side: (cur | prev) 00:32, 16 June 2010 Hobartimus (talk | contribs) (10,255 bytes) (per Squash Racket? (] (]) 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)) | |||
Revision as of 17:31, 16 June 2010
June 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
DusanSK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"not sure who you're socking for, but it's pretty blatant" is that a reason to block me? you don't even specify whose sock I am accused to be? I am not a sockNotes:
- 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="not sure who you're socking for, but it's pretty blatant" is that a reason to block me? you don't even specify whose sock I am accused to be? I am not a sock |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="not sure who you're socking for, but it's pretty blatant" is that a reason to block me? you don't even specify whose sock I am accused to be? I am not a sock |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="not sure who you're socking for, but it's pretty blatant" is that a reason to block me? you don't even specify whose sock I am accused to be? I am not a sock |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- ...and that's why the edit summary on your first contribution ever was inaccurate, but matched one two below it in the history, which was the other editor's 3rd revert, and your second contribution was to request protection on that page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because it was the correct argumentation(DusanSK (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC))
- What about this argumentation from the opposite side: (cur | prev) 00:32, 16 June 2010 Hobartimus (talk | contribs) (10,255 bytes) (per Squash Racket? (DusanSK (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC))