{{unblock|What I ment to say was "I will have you blocked",and also, I was not dilliberately giving off that I have admin powers, it was a genuine mistake.}}
Revision as of 10:57, 22 March 2007
Welcome to my talk page!
Please read the following before posting a comment.
I will always respond to anything posted here on YOUR talkpage, or if neccesary, via email.
If you need to contact me, use my talkpage, or e-mail me ,however, replies will not be swift, and I WILL report anything against Wikipedia policy here on my talkpage, or anyone elses talkpages, should they need to be informed, don't think for a minute that you can personally attack someone by email, because I will tell them.
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
OK, but your recent incivility and argumentativeness will result in a further block if you're not careful. You say at the top of your user page to 'please be civil' - that's good advice you should take care to follow yourself.
They've been blocked for a day (however, had it been up to me I would have made it two weeks, double their first block a couple of weeks ago). Daniel Case16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:
If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If you are able to edit the sandbox, you are not blocked from editing. Either the autoblock on your IP address has already expired, or you weren't blocked in the first place. Either way, you can resume editing.
If you are still blocked, follow the directions below:
Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Unblock request" section.
I was recently involved in a incident, which left me blocked for a time, however, I am now unblocked, and I have removed the warning notices, should I replace them, or is it ok that they have been removed?
It's not a problem to remove old messages you no longer need, some people see it as more honest to archive them the way you would any other talk page messages, but there isn't a hard and fast rule. --pgk17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
I wouldn't call that a typo. We've seen that specific type of vandalism before. I tend to post a "final warning" template on user talk pages when I find racist vandalism. As far as material "promoting" (or detracting from) the sport, I see no problem removing it. Rklawton16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked it - but please try not to leave messages like that on their talk pages - it'll only serve to encourage them ;) Glen11:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw your edit to Talk:Top Gear (current format): "if you wish to edit these, do so at your will but leave me a message first." Given that this showed a glaring misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works I thought I'd have a look at your other contributions. A quick browse hasn't shown me any general problems regarding articles, however I have noticed a few troubling examples of incivility.
For example "Shut up you insensitive little brat, how is it funny that a fatherless child is mouring the loss?". Now I haven't read into what prompted you to say that, but it doesn't matter. If someone is vandalising articles, attacking you, or leaving distasteful talk page comments Wikipedia has processes for stopping them. However no matter how bad their behaviour there is no excuse for being abusive yourself.
Also this edit. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for promoting your own point of view about the subject or acting as a discussion forum. Thank you Mark8322:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a request to review your edit history I found this edit in which you impersonated administrative powers.[2] I have imposed an indefinite block on that basis and am pursuing a community ban that will be posted shortly at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. Should you wish to defend your actions you may post to this talk page. Please present whatever mitigating evidence you wish the community to consider. DurovaCharge!13:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for joining the project. I hope that you will be able to make a positive contribution to our effots so far.
However, as you have probably noticed, the articles have not been improved as much as I thought would be able to do. This is mainly because the East Lancs website (http://www.elcb.co.uk), which said the new look website would be finished eairly in the new year, still hasn't been, so only basic details of current and past products are available. An dnow the website has changed mysteriously.
What I ment to say was "I will have you blocked",and also, I was not dilliberately giving off that I have admin powers, it was a genuine mistake.
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=What I ment to say was "I will have you blocked",and also, I was not dilliberately giving off that I have admin powers, it was a genuine mistake. |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=What I ment to say was "I will have you blocked",and also, I was not dilliberately giving off that I have admin powers, it was a genuine mistake. |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=What I ment to say was "I will have you blocked",and also, I was not dilliberately giving off that I have admin powers, it was a genuine mistake. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}