User talk:Orestes1984: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:31, 24 February 2014


User	Talk	Contributions	Boxes	Sandbox

February 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating a request to stay off of someone's talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who wanted to have nothing to do with a certain editor you left a lot of messages on their talk page, despite being asked at least twice to not post there any more. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a disgrace as an administrator and are clearly taking sides in this discussion Drmies. If I am pinged it puts me in the situation that asks for a response, this is nothing more than Wikipedia:Gaming the system. You are a disgrace and this system is a laughing stock. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Orestes1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Simply responding to a ping request for comment does not deserve a 72hour block and quite frankly this is nothing short of ridiculous. Next time I am invited to comment on this users talk page I will simply take it up as a matter for AN/I as I want nothing more to do with it. see also here and here and also here as well as here for comments saved for posterity about said user who is doing nothing more than "goading" and engaging in fanfare about gaming the system and creating an "invidious situation" simply so as this would be the end result which has led to this after I deleted their unwanted comments on my talk page. This is not double standards clearly because said users engagement in this situation is doing nothing other than unnecessarily inflaming a discussion that has exactly nothing to do with them, yet they are making a point of making it something to do with them unnecessarily --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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=Simply responding to a ping request for comment does not deserve a 72hour block and quite frankly this is nothing short of ridiculous. Next time I am invited to comment on this users talk page I will simply take it up as a matter for AN/I as I want nothing more to do with it. see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596865298 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=596867469&oldid=596866960 here] and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596867913 here] as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596868341 here] for comments saved for posterity about said user who is doing nothing more than "goading" and engaging in fanfare about [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] and creating an "invidious situation" simply so as this would be the end result which has led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596869752 this] after I deleted their unwanted comments on my talk page. This is not double standards clearly because said users engagement in this situation is doing nothing other than unnecessarily inflaming a discussion that has exactly nothing to do with them, yet they are making a point of making it something to do with them unnecessarily --[[User:Orestes1984|Orestes1984]] ([[User talk:Orestes1984#top|talk]]) 04:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |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=Simply responding to a ping request for comment does not deserve a 72hour block and quite frankly this is nothing short of ridiculous. Next time I am invited to comment on this users talk page I will simply take it up as a matter for AN/I as I want nothing more to do with it. see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596865298 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=596867469&oldid=596866960 here] and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596867913 here] as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596868341 here] for comments saved for posterity about said user who is doing nothing more than "goading" and engaging in fanfare about [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] and creating an "invidious situation" simply so as this would be the end result which has led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596869752 this] after I deleted their unwanted comments on my talk page. This is not double standards clearly because said users engagement in this situation is doing nothing other than unnecessarily inflaming a discussion that has exactly nothing to do with them, yet they are making a point of making it something to do with them unnecessarily --[[User:Orestes1984|Orestes1984]] ([[User talk:Orestes1984#top|talk]]) 04:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |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=Simply responding to a ping request for comment does not deserve a 72hour block and quite frankly this is nothing short of ridiculous. Next time I am invited to comment on this users talk page I will simply take it up as a matter for AN/I as I want nothing more to do with it. see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596865298 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=596867469&oldid=596866960 here] and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596867913 here] as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596868341 here] for comments saved for posterity about said user who is doing nothing more than "goading" and engaging in fanfare about [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] and creating an "invidious situation" simply so as this would be the end result which has led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timeshift9&diff=prev&oldid=596869752 this] after I deleted their unwanted comments on my talk page. This is not double standards clearly because said users engagement in this situation is doing nothing other than unnecessarily inflaming a discussion that has exactly nothing to do with them, yet they are making a point of making it something to do with them unnecessarily --[[User:Orestes1984|Orestes1984]] ([[User talk:Orestes1984#top|talk]]) 04:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

John linked you out of, no doubt, common courtesy. I put little stock in what you think of me. You were asked to stay away from there, and you should have. Besides, you came there only to rant and accuse more. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about the above that is correct at all, while *John may have linked me there, it should have been known that by doing so it was an invite for trouble based upon past experiences particularly as an administrator. Further to the point, if HiLo48 is going to game the system, in such a way as to think he can comment about me after an informal request to not have me comment on his page he has another thing coming. Quite frankly I simply do not care about your actions here other than to state that they are favouring one side of the equation here. Next time I wont even bother with you and take this matter directly to AN/I. Further to the point my comments for asking uninvolved third parties to stay out of it are well within reason, this discussion would have sorted itself out if uninvolved third parties simply left it alone there is an obvious long standing system here called stay out of it that should be enforced here. I don't care if that is a Wikipedia rule or policy either, it's just common sense if you dont want to be seen as inflaming the situation. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 05:25, 24 February 2014 edit Orestes1984 (talk \| contribs) 1,555 edits →February 2014 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:31, 24 February 2014 edit undo Orestes1984 (talk \| contribs) 1,555 edits →February 2014 Next edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:
	*{{U\|John}} linked you out of, no doubt, common courtesy. I put little stock in what you think of me. You were asked to stay away from there, and you should have. Besides, you came there only to rant and accuse more. [[User:Drmies\|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies\|talk]]) 05:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)		*{{U\|John}} linked you out of, no doubt, common courtesy. I put little stock in what you think of me. You were asked to stay away from there, and you should have. Besides, you came there only to rant and accuse more. [[User:Drmies\|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies\|talk]]) 05:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

	: There is nothing about the above that is correct at all, while *{{U\|John}} may have linked me there, it should have been known that by doing so it was an invite for trouble based upon past experiences particularly as an administrator. Further to the point, if HiLo48 is going to game the system, in such a way as to think he can comment about me after an informal request to not have me comment on his page he has another thing coming. Quite frankly '''I simply do not care''' about your actions here other than to state that they are favouring one side of the equation here. Next time I wont even bother with you and take this matter directly to AN/I. Further to the point my comments for asking uninvolved third parties to stay out of it are well within reason, this discussion would have sorted itself out if uninvolved third parties simply '''left it alone''' there is an obvious long standing system here called '''stay out of it''' that should be enforced here.--[[User:Orestes1984\|Orestes1984]] ([[User talk:Orestes1984#top\|talk]]) 05:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)		: There is nothing about the above that is correct at all, while *{{U\|John}} may have linked me there, it should have been known that by doing so it was an invite for trouble based upon past experiences particularly as an administrator. Further to the point, if HiLo48 is going to game the system, in such a way as to think he can comment about me after an informal request to not have me comment on his page he has another thing coming. Quite frankly '''I simply do not care''' about your actions here other than to state that they are favouring one side of the equation here. Next time I wont even bother with you and take this matter directly to AN/I. Further to the point my comments for asking uninvolved third parties to stay out of it are well within reason, this discussion would have sorted itself out if uninvolved third parties simply '''left it alone''' there is an obvious long standing system here called '''stay out of it''' that should be enforced here. I don't care if that is a Wikipedia rule or policy either, it's just common sense if [[User talk:Timeshift9\|you]] dont want to be seen as inflaming the situation. --[[User:Orestes1984\|Orestes1984]] ([[User talk:Orestes1984#top\|talk]]) 05:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)