Jump to content

User:Daddy Kindsoul: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
reply
Daddy Kindsoul (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
{{unblock}}
{{unblock}}
:You're not gonna get unblocked if you don't give a reason why you should be... --<font color="orange"><strike>''[[User:Rory096|Rory]]''<font color="green">[[WP:EA|0]]</font>'''[[User talk:Rory096|96]]'''</strike></font> 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
:You're not gonna get unblocked if you don't give a reason why you should be... --<font color="orange"><strike>''[[User:Rory096|Rory]]''<font color="green">[[WP:EA|0]]</font>'''[[User talk:Rory096|96]]'''</strike></font> 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked on 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (as seen above) for violating the 3RR by [[User_talk:Sceptre]]... [[WP:3RR]] states, "after your fourth revert in 24 hours (UTC), '''sysops may block you for up to 24 hours.'''" those 24 hours have now passed... after emailing [[User_talk:Sceptre]], I have still not been unblocked.

This seems to be an abuse of admin powers and violation of Wikipedia policy. - [[User:Deathrocker|Deathrocker]] 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:14, 18 March 2006

Messages will be deleted once read.

3RR

You have been blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on Moi dix Mois for four days. I'm also going to take you to Request for Comment with Leyasu on Tuesday so we can stop this persistent edit war Sceptre (Talk) 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

You're not gonna get unblocked if you don't give a reason why you should be... --Rory096 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked on 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (as seen above) for violating the 3RR by User_talk:Sceptre... WP:3RR states, "after your fourth revert in 24 hours (UTC), sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." those 24 hours have now passed... after emailing User_talk:Sceptre, I have still not been unblocked.

This seems to be an abuse of admin powers and violation of Wikipedia policy. - Deathrocker 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)