User talk:92.3.22.140: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|I asked an important question about whether a source was reliable or not. This was reverted by another user with a wholly spurious and irrelevant edit summary. The question was asked in good faith and deserves to be restored I think to the talk page even if my , ( accurate) description of the editor using such sources is removed.|decline=Calling another editor a "demented fascist twit" is not an indication of good faith. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed|I asked an important question about whether a source was reliable or not. This was reverted by another user with a wholly spurious and irrelevant edit summary. The question was asked in good faith and deserves to be restored I think to the talk page even if my , ( accurate) description of the editor using such sources is removed.|decline=Calling another editor a "demented fascist twit" is not an indication of good faith. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)}} |
||
{{unblock reviewed|I've said o.k. drop that (accurate) observation - the question I asked is valid and should not have been censored with a mendacious and irrelevant edit summary. Will you address the matter of restoring the good faith content that was removed arbitrarily and because of a POV and if unblocked I promise to remove the adjectives I used describing the user of the (I fear) non RS. Please concentrate on the matter of the content. I do wish you admins would do that sometimes. Why are you dazzled by words like 'twit' and blind to content disputes of importance. Pathetic.|decline=When you're stuck in a hole, stop digging. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 20:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
Revision as of 20:51, 1 April 2016
92.3.22.140 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I asked an important question about whether a source was reliable or not. This was reverted by another user with a wholly spurious and irrelevant edit summary. The question was asked in good faith and deserves to be restored I think to the talk page even if my , ( accurate) description of the editor using such sources is removed.
Decline reason:
Calling another editor a "demented fascist twit" is not an indication of good faith. Huon (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (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.
92.3.22.140 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've said o.k. drop that (accurate) observation - the question I asked is valid and should not have been censored with a mendacious and irrelevant edit summary. Will you address the matter of restoring the good faith content that was removed arbitrarily and because of a POV and if unblocked I promise to remove the adjectives I used describing the user of the (I fear) non RS. Please concentrate on the matter of the content. I do wish you admins would do that sometimes. Why are you dazzled by words like 'twit' and blind to content disputes of importance. Pathetic.
Decline reason:
When you're stuck in a hole, stop digging. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:51, 1 April 2016 (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.