Misplaced Pages

User talk:Weevlos: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:45, 27 August 2006 editGwernol (talk | contribs)94,742 edits []: Removing unblock request - user is unblocked← Previous edit Revision as of 10:05, 27 August 2006 edit undoWeevlos (talk | contribs)36 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 37: Line 37:
I have unblocked you.--] 20:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC) I have unblocked you.--] 20:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
] has been restored.--] 20:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC) ] has been restored.--] 20:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|would like to participate in Arbitration case}}

'''My attempts to edit arbitration articles meet with the following message''':

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by MONGO for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Weevlos". The reason given for Weevlos's block is: "ED troll".

Your IP address is 68.69.181.25.

I am not yet unblocked. My username was unblocked but the autoblock was not. --] 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:05, 27 August 2006

Dear Weevlos

Welcome to the Internet's fastest growing community of encyclopedia editors!

Just a note to help you in your editing: you marked an edit to the article Bantown as a minor edit. The help page on minor edits states:

"Reverts to a disputed page are unlikely to be minor. When a page is disputed, and especially if an edit war is brewing or in full eruption, then it's better not to mark ANY edit as minor, unless you're sure that all other users will agree it's minor, like correcting a misspelling."

You should usually only mark an edit as minor when it's a simple correction of spelling or an obvious typo, or a change in formatting which doesn't affect the content of a page.

hth.

Via strass 03:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Careful

Be careful that your new sub-page does not become a soapbox. If I were you, I'd eliminate much of the commentary and make it more of a list/database format or you'll get blocked just like the others. Karwynn (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I have contributed articles and edits in good faith to Misplaced Pages before and if I am blocked for civil criticism then it will merely cement the proof of abusive behavior by the people in question. --Weevlos 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on AN/I

Please do not make personal attacks on other users as you did here. It is a violation of our policies and repeated or egregious examples will get you blocked. --CBD 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to post evidence to the case you can use the {{unblock}} template to ask to be unblocked to participate. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I feel I was blocked unfairly and would like to be unblocked to present my case in the evidence section of the arbitration hearing.


I would like to point out that I was blocked by the whim of a single administrator for having a page that criticized him in a completely civil manner. My talk page was also protected to prevent me from discussing it. --Weevlos 17:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you.--MONGO 20:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC) User:Weevlos/Compiling Evidence has been restored.--MONGO 20:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Weevlos (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

would like to participate in Arbitration case

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.
Administrator use only:

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=would like to participate in Arbitration case |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=would like to participate in Arbitration case |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=would like to participate in Arbitration case |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

My attempts to edit arbitration articles meet with the following message:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by MONGO for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Weevlos". The reason given for Weevlos's block is: "ED troll".

Your IP address is 68.69.181.25.

I am not yet unblocked. My username was unblocked but the autoblock was not. --Weevlos 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Category: