This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Handpolk (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 4 July 2015 (→July 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:23, 4 July 2015 by Handpolk (talk | contribs) (→July 2015)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)July 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Handpolk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick blanked conversation on my talk page with a trolling edit summary, I warned them for this. The Banner was edit warring across multiple articles, I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made a single revert of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' nor does it merit being blocked.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=Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick , I warned them for this. The Banner , I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' nor does it merit being blocked. |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=Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick , I warned them for this. The Banner , I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' nor does it merit being blocked. |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=Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick , I warned them for this. The Banner , I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' nor does it merit being blocked. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bishonen, in all honesty I do not see this block interfering with my request in AE. As Gamaliel said, that's been open awhile. And it's not really going anywhere anyway. However I do find your block reason inaccurate, as you can see above. The only thing I'm guilty of that you named is making a single revert. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Noted. As for "making a single revert", oh please. You may not technically have reverted at User talk:The Banner, but when he removed your warning, you posted another one, equally meritless. You've been behaving disgracefully on User talk:Sabbatino, too, very recently, and on User talk:2005. In fact your talkpage manners are appalling. In this post in response to my block, which you had removed when I went to reply, it sounded exactly like you think all warnings, good and bad, are equal. That's not the case. If you are interested in rebuilding community trust, as several users have recommended at AE, my first advice to you would be to stop "warning" people, until and unless you get a grasp on when and how it's appropriate to do so. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
- I did not mean all warnings are equal, I meant all of mine had merit. You've named all of these various actions of mine and are implying all of this is 100% my fault. That is not the case, other editors also acted improper. Yet you are only taking action against me and only pointing out my actions. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Noted. As for "making a single revert", oh please. You may not technically have reverted at User talk:The Banner, but when he removed your warning, you posted another one, equally meritless. You've been behaving disgracefully on User talk:Sabbatino, too, very recently, and on User talk:2005. In fact your talkpage manners are appalling. In this post in response to my block, which you had removed when I went to reply, it sounded exactly like you think all warnings, good and bad, are equal. That's not the case. If you are interested in rebuilding community trust, as several users have recommended at AE, my first advice to you would be to stop "warning" people, until and unless you get a grasp on when and how it's appropriate to do so. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC).