User talk:92.3.22.140
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.
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:
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=Admins are not addressing the point at issue of good faith content restoration. the question needs to be asked about Reliable Sources for the sake of the integrity of the article. Please don't respond with stuff about 'holes' and irrelevant 'advice'. Please answer the question about content on the talk page being removed improperly with a mendacious edit summary,and Reliable Sources. I've said I'll not call any other user a 'twit' or 'fascist', and stick to the issue. Could an intelligent admin also address the issue. Is this place so far gone really??? |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=Admins are not addressing the point at issue of good faith content restoration. the question needs to be asked about Reliable Sources for the sake of the integrity of the article. Please don't respond with stuff about 'holes' and irrelevant 'advice'. Please answer the question about content on the talk page being removed improperly with a mendacious edit summary,and Reliable Sources. I've said I'll not call any other user a 'twit' or 'fascist', and stick to the issue. Could an intelligent admin also address the issue. Is this place so far gone really??? |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=Admins are not addressing the point at issue of good faith content restoration. the question needs to be asked about Reliable Sources for the sake of the integrity of the article. Please don't respond with stuff about 'holes' and irrelevant 'advice'. Please answer the question about content on the talk page being removed improperly with a mendacious edit summary,and Reliable Sources. I've said I'll not call any other user a 'twit' or 'fascist', and stick to the issue. Could an intelligent admin also address the issue. Is this place so far gone really??? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- @Jpgordon:, @Huon:, and @Widr: this IP also tends to sock. It has happened with this 92.3.26.121 (talk · contribs) account and now 92.3.30.114 (talk · contribs) account. In fact, it just admitted that it socked. I suggest a full-range block and an extended block period on this account. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Its just a polite question you are now censoring. 92.3.30.114 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |