User talk:Lbrad2001
Blocked
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Despite being warned previously [1], you have continued to make personal attacks against other editors in edits such as this and this. Comments in which you insist that only your preferred version of the article is acceptable such as this and this and this are also not acceptable as they run counter to Wikipedia's consensus-based editing culture. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
{
Lbrad2001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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 reason:
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, or
- 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 guide to appealing blocks for more information. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:18, 9 May 2010 (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.
Lbrad2001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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 reason:
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. - FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:18, 9 May 2010 (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.
Lbrad2001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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 reason:
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. Kuru (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2010 (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.
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. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 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. (Lbrad2001 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC))
Lbrad2001 (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=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. |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=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. |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=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Removing declined unblocks is a good way to make everyone question whether you are really here to participate in good faith at all. WP:BLANKING would be a good thing to read while you wait out your block. DMacks (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I feel like Im getting ganged up on here, all I wanted to do was add two sentences to an article and I'm forced into arguing with someone over whether or not it should be in the article. If I argue with him then I am "engaging in personal attacks." If I dont argue with him then I am not listening to the consensus opinion, which seems to be only him. So basically I am in a lose lose situation and now am banned for no reason. (Lbrad2001 (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC))