User talk:Cordeyn

I got blocked because for being personally attacked for no reason a few days after I joined. This reminds me of the cases in Sudan in which women get fifty lashes for being gang-raped (note, I've been gang-raped by the admins at this site)

Don't be skank ho bitch

Thank you.

I guess since you were nigger lover and all you forgot "nappy headed ho". Cordeyn (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries like this are definitely unnecessary. Wikipedia has a strict biographies of living persons policy. That applies to all of Wikipedia, including edit summaries. You may also want to see WP:DENY. This could be considered a legal threat, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. I would strongly suggest you walk away from this little dispute. Mr.Z-man 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a justifiable legal threat. Would you let me get away with calling every admin on this site a pedo for no reason? Cordeyn (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already blocked him for the comment and blanked the thread, making threats only serves to escalate the situation. In the future, please report such comments to WP:ANI. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anon should be unblocked because he's fun to revert, but the librarian guy should be kept blocked infinitely. Cordeyn (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. But fortunately, rumor has it that some anons are simply unblockable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.87.206 (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, your continued comments at User talk:The Librarian are probably unnecessary. The user has been blocked to prevent disruption, and we don't want to cause them to become any more disruptive, and calling them a "troll" like you've done isn't helpful. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey chuckles, how many times has your RFA failed now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.87.206 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop trolling The Librarian's talk page - you have no need to post to the page now and if you continue as you have been, you will blocked - you're simply trying to inflame the situation now. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and blocked for 24 hours - I did warn you to stop, but you decided not to listen. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, that jerk. Now unblock me. Cordeyn (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

No good reason for block. What if the vandal comes back?

Decline reason:

Your harassment of The Librarian is clearly unacceptable. Your refering to others as jerks does not help at all. Dloh cierekim 05:54, 31 January 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 WASN'T HARASSING HIM, HE WAS HARASSING ME. Cordeyn (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

No good reason for block. What if the vandal comes back?

Decline reason:

No, that makes no sense. Block is justified. This was your second request, so I'm protecting your talk page until it expires. Cool Hand Luke 05:58, 31 January 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.

Sorry

For egging you on, I guess you could say I am a bit of a troll. Unfortunately I doubt we'll be able to resolve any ideological differences, but I look forward to working on articles with you from hereon in with a new understanding of each others individual fragilities. Thank you. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for This edit [1] does not show any contrition or understanding of the reasons for the last block.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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!

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.

Administrator use only:

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=WTF?? What was that for? There was nothing wrong with that edit! |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=WTF?? What was that for? There was nothing wrong with that edit! |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=WTF?? What was that for? There was nothing wrong with that edit! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}