User talk:Lbrad2001: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
restoring declined requests - do not remove while blocked |
←Blanked the page |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Blocked == |
|||
<div class="user-block"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing, for a period of '''48 hours''', for '''personal attacks'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make constructive contributions]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 03:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> |
|||
Despite being warned previously [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lbrad2001&action=historysubmit&diff=359615886&oldid=359550455], you have continued to make personal attacks against other editors in edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walther_WA_2000&action=historysubmit&diff=359608472&oldid=359608398 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walther_WA_2000&diff=next&oldid=360827738 this]. Comments in which you insist that only your preferred version of the article is acceptable such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walther_WA_2000&diff=next&oldid=359608472 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walther_WA_2000&diff=next&oldid=360802457 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walther_WA_2000&diff=next&oldid=360834968 this] are also not acceptable as they run counter to Wikipedia's consensus-based editing culture. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{{unblock reviewed|1=I have done nothing to violate wikipedias terms of use...I have been maliciously blocked by request of a certain user who disagrees with my edits, he has personally attacked me and not been penalized and yet I am penalized for making, what I will admit are sarcastic, remarks back. View the text of our converations for yourself. He tells me that my opinion does not matter, that the decision on my edit has already been made without taking my opinion into consideration. I point out to him how I feel that my opinion has merit and he simply says "no the rules say I am right". I disagree. The debate was about whether or not we should mention in the WA 2000 article that James Bond used it in a movie and in a video game. We are talking about an extremely rare weapon of which less than 200 were ever produced, and James Bond, one of the most famous fictional characters of all time, uses it twice as his personal sniper rifle. An actual WA 2000 was used in the movie. I'd like to know if the guy who is persecuting these attacks on me can name any other time it is seen on film, ESPECIALLY IN SUCH A HIGH PROFILE MOVIE. He tried to tell me that my reference in the article was not reputable while he himself has a source which is a dead link. If I am in the wrong here explain to me how he can reference a link which does not even exist but I cannot reference one that does? And why does the appearance of an extremely rare gun in one of the most popular movie franchises of all time not warrant mention?|decline=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 Wikipedia, <u>or</u> |
|||
*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 [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. '''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY<sub>sock</sub></small>]]'''<sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<font color="#4B0082">(T<small>ALK</small>)</font>]]</small></sup></span> 05:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=May I also request that Nick-D not be involved in resolving this dispute, he obviously knows and is favoring the user I am arguing with. I would like an unbiased look at this. I wish I had never tried to argue with this guy to begin with, I simply tried to explain my point of view and have now been accused of personal attacks. Why is it that when I ask him for an explantion as to why one of his sources is a dead link he is not required to answer me in any way? Yet when I make an edit to the WA 2000 page I am subjected to a verbal inquisition?|decline=For future reference, please only make one request. Making multiple requests is not going to help you get unblocked. Also, you may find [[WP:NOTTHEM]] useful. When requesting to be unblocked, talk about yourself, not others, like you did above. - '''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY<sub>sock</sub></small>]]'''<sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<font color="#4B0082">(T<small>ALK</small>)</font>]]</small></sup></span> 05:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=You guys are abusing your power. I simply asked for a reason as to why my information was not useable and why someone else can quote a source that does not exist while I cannot use one that does.|decline=We're not here to help you with your trivial content dispute. Please do not use this template again unless you address the reason for your block. Thanks. [[User:Kuru|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Kuru</span>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<span style="color:#f5deb3">''(talk)''</span>]] 14:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
I have looked at this dispute in some detail. In my opinion the controversial edit does not, in fact, qualify as notable under the terms set out in the pop culture section of [[WP:GUN]]. You may not - indeed clearly do not - agree with this, but to edit in wikipedia we have to follow guidelines and policies even if we do not agree with them. But your block is for incivility, and attack and insulting edits are never acceptable. --<font color="Red">[[User:Anthony.bradbury|'''Anthony.bradbury''']]</font><sup><font color="Black">[[User talk:Anthony.bradbury|"talk"]]</font></sup> 14:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Fine I COMPLETELY DISAGREE and I will find a source that supports my claims and resubmit after I am unblocked, I still havent heard an explanation as to why he can be uncivil to me but I cant be uncivil back. For the record I wasnt trying to be uncivil, the man just wouldnt listen to my argument a all. But expected me to obey him when I think the rules supported my case. ([[User:Lbrad2001|Lbrad2001]] ([[User talk:Lbrad2001#top|talk]]) 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)) |
|||
{{unblock|I feel I was unfairly blocked. I simply said I no longer wanted to argue with the user in question and I was done posting messages back and forth to him again and again. I was warned earlier for so called "personal attacks", I stopped said attacks and was still blocked.}} |
|||