This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vintagekits (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 12 November 2009 (→Since you continue to be disruptive..: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:16, 12 November 2009 by Vintagekits (talk | contribs) (→Since you continue to be disruptive..: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Since you continue to be disruptive..
Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. SirFozzie (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yawn! exact reason?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Personal attacks and disruptive editing. I've brought it up here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am quite astounded by your retarded logic! Not sure why because I shold come to expect it to be honest. So who am I attacking and what is the attack because I cant figure it out.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Personal attacks and disruptive editing. I've brought it up here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement.
Decline reason:
You clearly don't want to understand the meaning of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (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.
Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- To whatever administrator handles this unblock request, see this ANI Discussion for more: . SirFozzie (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, how am I supposed to know why I was blocked when I asked for clarification on why I was blocked the blocking admin ignores that request yet he is obviously watching this page. Its a farce!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't play that "innocent victim" card, because nobody is buying it. How about this remark for an example: ""stop acting like a fucking arsehole and get a grip of yourself you ego maniac." No way no day is that not a personal attack. Or how about right here on this page: "I am quite astounded by your retarded logic!" I advise to stop digging this hole any deeper. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- A. I didnt say that thats what she was I interpreted what Domer meant - its hardly a personal attack. B. I said his logic was retard - I didnt say he was a retard - there is a difference. C. I couldnt give a shit about digging a hole - my card is marked and I cant piss crooked without getting shit on, I give a toss anymore I am retired. This page will be blanked at the end of the 48 hour block. End of story - I wont be replying again and any further messeges will be deleted.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack.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=there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. |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=there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. |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=there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
--Vintagekits (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Category: