User talk:Cordeyn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:24, 1 February 2008

UNBLOCK NOW!!!

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).

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

Request reason:

WTF?? What was that for? There was nothing wrong with that edit!

Decline reason:

I feel that there is a low probability of constructive contributions in the near future based on this edit. — slakr^\ talk / 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'll leave the unblock request for another admin to review, but the calling the ADL a "Jewish Supremacist organization" is hardly a good-faith comment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked for a week for teeling the truth? I'm trying to discuss with the adminship seriously, not to be blocked for unfair and for the most part Conservapedia-style reasons. Cordeyn (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm grateful for your efforts to clean up after vandalism, you seem rather combative about it. Why on earth would you think a comment like this would ever be appropriate? Or an edit summary like this? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're more appropriate then the things people have said to me. I just joined a few days ago and get attacked immediately for no reasom, first with slander, then with unfair blocks, etc. I thought we have a policy against newbie-biting? Cordeyn (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have policies on civility, which you have decidedly not been following. And even if you were attacked, two wrongs do not make a right. —C.Fred (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have I not been following them? I wasn't calling anyone a pedophile. So no, the attacks on me were much worse and are destined to continue through unfair blocks given just because I expose the truth. Cordeyn (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:23, 1 February 2008 edit C.Fred (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 277,700 edits m Reverted edits by Cordeyn (talk) to last version by C.Fred ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:24, 1 February 2008 edit undo Cordeyn (talk \| contribs) 39 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:::We also have policies on [[WP:CIVIL\|civility]], which you have decidedly not been following. And even if you were attacked, two wrongs do not make a right. —'''[[User:C.Fred\|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred\|talk]]) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)		:::We also have policies on [[WP:CIVIL\|civility]], which you have decidedly not been following. And even if you were attacked, two wrongs do not make a right. —'''[[User:C.Fred\|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred\|talk]]) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

			::::In what way have I not been following them? I wasn't calling anyone a pedophile. So no, the attacks on me were much worse and are destined to continue through unfair blocks given just because I expose the truth. [[User:Cordeyn\|Cordeyn]] ([[User talk:Cordeyn#top\|talk]]) 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)