Misplaced Pages

User talk:Lilkunta

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Only (talk | contribs) at 13:11, 10 June 2007 (declined). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:11, 10 June 2007 by Only (talk | contribs) (declined)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

: I asked 4 admins aside from metros bc of bias/threats like this :

Will you agree to stop using all forms of nonstandard color and font outside of this talk page (User talk:Lilkunta)? It doesn't matter who says they are "ok with it," because even those of us who are not "ok with it" still have to read what you've written. If you agree, are unblocked, and continue to use a nonstandard font or color, you will be reblocked. Also, you're going to need to fully understand that your user and user talk pages are not a place for your political grandstanding. Note that incivility is not tolerated. No good faith edit is vandalism, and users leaving you warnings about your actions certainly are not vandalizing this page. - auburnpilot talk 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)}}

Replies like this sound 2 me liek the reviewer isnt checking all the involved info.

What is uncivil is others editing my talk page to how they want it to look.

What is uncivil is make false charges when if the person had looked they would have seen that I didnt delete; I archived. Positive & negative criticism is a part of life.

The so called 'good faith' edits were not in good faith IMO bc doing a little looking b4 leaping, 'Darth' & all the others will c the comments. I archived the comments bc they were lengthening my talk page. Lilkunta 12:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

As usual the orig block from User:Darthgriz98 was wrong. I didnt delete the comments. They were archived. Also, admin OTHER THAN review b/c 'metros' is bias. Thx.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for removing comments you were blocked for: "For disruption of Misplaced Pages after several blocks and multiple warnings as well as a complete reluctance to cooperate." This is a very true statement and has nothing to do with your archiving of warnings. Please come back with a legitimate reason for unblock that addresses the problems raised. Metros 13:11, 10 June 2007 (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.

Will you agree to stop using all forms of nonstandard color and font outside of this talk page (User talk:Lilkunta)? It doesn't matter who says they are "ok with it," because even those of us who are not "ok with it" still have to read what you've written. If you agree, are unblocked, and continue to use a nonstandard font or color, you will be reblocked. Also, you're going to need to fully understand that your user and user talk pages are not a place for your political grandstanding. Note that incivility is not tolerated. No good faith edit is vandalism, and users leaving you warnings about your actions certainly are not vandalizing this page. - auburnpilot talk 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)