Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ste4k (talk | contribs) at 20:38, 19 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ste4k (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

curses are not real

Just to be clear, Ste4k, there is not actually such a thing as a "curse", as you seem to believe in your persistent insertion of a weird story about a "cursed newsgroup". Please stop adding this silliness to an otherwise fine article. Sdedeo (tips) 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Sdedeo, and I appreciate your further comments on the Talk:Curse about the rephrasing of the section to avoid such an interpretation in the future: "Congrats on rephrasing the paragraph so as not to claim the existence of a real live internet curse. -- Sdedeo (tips) 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)" Ste4k 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on June 19 2006 (UTC) to Curse

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Thank you Mr. Connolly, for bringing this matter to my attention. I am sorry that you hadn't the time to read the discussion in Talk:Curse or check to see that the revisions made had changed the content. I have taken the time that you set aside for me to become more familiar with the 3RR. I have also become more aware of the purposes of the Talk pages. Thanks again. Ste4k 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But you have also leapt straight back into reverting, so you get another block: 24h this time William M. Connolley 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the revert was made to prevent vandalism, and proper procedure for preventing vandalism

was followed. Ste4k 20:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am new and unfamilar to the wiki environment. I am reading about how all of this works, but

am still unclear on whether your reference to "discussion" earlier meant e-mail, the talk-page of the subject,

your talk-page, or this-page here. I haven't any idea how you are properly notified to discuss this issue or

where exactly such discussions normally take place. Please allow some patience. Ste4k

I suggest, if you're new, you apply WP:1RR until you're settled in. And perhaps beyond. Discussion refers to the talk pages of the article. Its boilerplate text in my block message, though William M. Connolley 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Documentation of the vandalism as well as full justification for the addition to the article

is discussed and was further appended this morning in the talk-pages of the article.

In this particular revert today, two instances of blanking were reverted, one of a person

whom does not have a talk-page to discuss. The other person was advised on their talk-page

about blanking. Per the person that only has an internet address, they were invited on the

talk-page of the article to participate. I appreciate your reference to 1RR and will read

that shortly. Thanks. Ste4k 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock