Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 131.94.167.215 (talk) at 00:50, 29 November 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rememberkigali (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=There is no reason for this. What threat is there? It sounds "close" to a threat? I did not threaten and this was in very, very bad faith. I should be unblocked immediatly. I have done nothing wrong. Anyone that reviews what has been going on will understand this. I asked for my account to be deleted and there was a legitamate discussion going on. I was receiving ADVICE. This is another example of an admin over-reacting over advice and HELP seeking. Blocked for seeking help and advice? When others were helping me too? Please unblock me. |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 reason for this. What threat is there? It sounds "close" to a threat? I did not threaten and this was in very, very bad faith. I should be unblocked immediatly. I have done nothing wrong. Anyone that reviews what has been going on will understand this. I asked for my account to be deleted and there was a legitamate discussion going on. I was receiving ADVICE. This is another example of an admin over-reacting over advice and HELP seeking. Blocked for seeking help and advice? When others were helping me too? Please unblock me. |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 reason for this. What threat is there? It sounds "close" to a threat? I did not threaten and this was in very, very bad faith. I should be unblocked immediatly. I have done nothing wrong. Anyone that reviews what has been going on will understand this. I asked for my account to be deleted and there was a legitamate discussion going on. I was receiving ADVICE. This is another example of an admin over-reacting over advice and HELP seeking. Blocked for seeking help and advice? When others were helping me too? Please unblock me. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You threatened to make your account public after you asked that it be "deleted". I "deleted" (read: blocked) it. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I think your corse of actions seem fair...however, the reasons for doing it are wrong. I would have liked for you to talk to me as I had requested. If my suggestion violated a rule...then I did not know. It is just wrong that people act without thinking to open a discussion. Don't you think that is wrong too?

Thank you for deleting the talk page. It was too much. I would like to suggest that the talk page be blocked from editing by other users for now.

Now...PLEASE DO NOT TAKE NEGATIVE ACTION FOR ASKING...would it be possible to block edits on the user-talk page for now while unblocking the ability to edit?

I think the blocking could have been a positive move if it had been done in good faith. I do not think it was but would accept some kind of positive response as an apology.

Furthermore, I find the irony that blocking me completly violates Libertarian principles. Please consider.

Thank you. Rememberkigali 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The talk page has not been deleted; its history remains. Editing by others cannot be blocked unless in cases of clear vandalism; that has not happened. You asked that the account be "deleted"; that cannot happen unless it is blocked. If you're asking that other users somehow not "bother" you as a result of your edits, the only way that will happen is if you don't edit any more. Taking all these into consideration, I took the course of action I felt was necessary. If you have more of an explanation, please do so. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Now that the account is blocked, will you please delete it?

Now, there are CLEAR examples of vandalism on my page...Indeed, I emphasise the fact that aggressive action took place without a clear understanding of the facts. The reason why I asked for my account to be deleted was vandalism by people I have NEVER had any interaction with. I ask that you "take these into consideration." Look at just today's history. It is weird. I havn't edited in a month.

Now that you know some more facts...and the account is blocked...please delete my account? Talk page? Ban edits because of clear vandalism?

Change must happen with this account in one way or another.

Thank you, 131.94.167.215 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Which are you suggesting, that legitimate warnings from other users are vandalism, or that blanking them yourself is vandalism? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not blank them. Some weird person did and they may even know me...I don't know. But I know what sock puppets are and I am not one. That reply assumes too much and is unfair...but does not contridict earlier actions.

This is why there should be a deletion and/or a block from editing the page.

I have provided a fair case for deletion. If you need more of an explination, please request.

Thank you, 131.94.167.215 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The only edits by User:131.94.216.188 are to the IP's talk page and this talk page, to give a seemingly unprovoked warning to User:Wizardman and to report that user to WP:AIV. You are currently editing from 131.94.167.215, both of which resolve to Florida International University. If you're not a sockpuppet, you're a meatpuppet. Requests denied. You may request further review or, better yet, move on to your next project. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. Furthermore, you accused me of being a meatpuppet, which is wrong and I believe a serious offense. Once again, another action without knowing all the facts, which is why it is important to end this page.

I want to show to you why it is important why User:131.94.216.188 has vandalized my page...WHICH I DO NOT APPROVE. If I approved of it, I would not be upset by it. I am being fully transparent.

Can you not see why this page must be deleted? 131.94.167.215 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock