Jump to content

User talk:174.3.103.39: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 112: Line 112:


{{unblock|See reasons above}}
{{unblock|See reasons above}}

in the case this is not the correct use of the template, I suggest creating a template that would transclude, or untransclude, w/e the term is, kind of like a {{tl|rfc}} so someone can be alerted to the blocked user's request for communication.[[Special:Contributions/174.3.103.39|174.3.103.39]] ([[User talk:174.3.103.39#top|talk]]) 06:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:07, 18 August 2009

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on the page Alimony worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing and its related help page for more information. Thank you. Corpx (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Yug

Hello, I answered there.

That's not necessary, but get an account will ease you to talk with other users. (see Special:UserLogin).


Thanks for your help on Involvement of the PRC in Africa Yug (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (174.3.103.39) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! —Tetracube (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to block

You have made at least two attempts to get people to view pornography on the Reference Desk. Therefore, I am suggesting that your access to Wikipedia be blocked. -- kainaw™ 21:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link is there for people to click on. It is not necessary for them to click on it.174.3.103.39 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any further similar image posting (I don't care if it's a link) will result in a block. If you have to ask if the image is safe for work, you shouldn't be editing here anyway. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are presuming I am posting images or links to mislead people. How can you do that.
I didn't do anything wrong: Wikipedia:Sexual content, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, Wikipedia:Preserve#Try to fix problems: preserve information, Wikipedia:Options to not see an image, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored.174.3.103.39 (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically stated that the image was "safe for work". It is not safe for work in any English speaking country in the entire world. This is not the first time you have done this and I expect it won't be the last. -- kainaw™ 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not state if was safe for work. That was the title of the section. I've posted the name of sections like "asdf", with absolutly nothing to do with the section.174.3.103.39 (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not reasonable to claim that you are smart enough to edit Wikipedia and stupid enough to fail to comprehend that the title of a section is directly related to the content of the section. Therefore, you are simply being a troll and deserve an indefinite block. -- kainaw™ 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Some people do not name sections very well. How do you feel that if someone miss named a title, it should be vandalism?174.3.103.39 (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A short block like this is intended to allow you to learn from your mistake and become a respected user of Wikipedia. Instead, you are using it to prove that you will continue to do the same thing as soon as the block expires. Nothing good will come from such a trollish attitude. -- kainaw™ 13:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

You have a worrying misinterpretation of those policies and guidelines if you think posting stuff like thus is okay. It's not. As such, your request is denied. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For reviewing admin: [1] \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

You did not give me a reason why I was blocked. I did not disrupt anything with my edit. Why is that posting stuff (you linked) not okay?

Decline reason:

You knoew exactly what you were doing. Play games like that again and you'll be blocked for a longer period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

So you blocked me because I posted a link to porn. Well that's up to the person to click on it or not. I can miss lead, but I didn't force anyone to do it. If I had constantly posted links to porn, and people kept removing them, that would be vandalism. This is one link, and I didn't spam it.

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. Closedmouth (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was unfairly blocked. As I've listed the reasons above: *I did not force anyone to click on the link I provided. *I did not post a link multiple times.174.3.103.39 (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

For easy reference, the claim "I did not post a link multiple times" is easily refuted here and here. The same image is used in both posts. In the first, there is a response from a user that the image should be accompanied with a warning that it is not safe for work. In the second, the image is accompanied with a title stating that it is safe for work. -- kainaw™ 03:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Nja247 12:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Blocked for 1 week.

Well That Took Forever

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Elaborate on the reasons of so called "extensive vandalism".174.3.103.39 (talk) 8:40 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock. Unblock very unlikely given this is a repeat of problems that led to the last block. Shell babelfish 12:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You were reported for doing the same stuff that got you blocked the last time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The last time was as in the words of an IRCer's in a discussion a week ago "...deceptive...". This one was not meant to deceive.174.3.103.39 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Five unblock requests? Without really making an argument? You have wasted our time for far too long. You won't anymore; the page will be protected for the duration (And no, I don't consider glibly saying "I kowtow to you" to be at all sincere evidence of penitence. Game over here. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Undoing Revision At Entertainment Desk

I understand that was not something I should have done, I kowtow to you.174.3.103.39 (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page Aragonite do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Baseball Bugs

Please explain where Baseball Bugs is engaged in an edit war. Also, please include diffs. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to be a little more straightforward and less diplomatic than the Hon. Mythdon: Cease mentioning my name here or you'll be blocked for harassment. Ya hear? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning for disruptive edits

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC) This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Disruptive edits and vandalism: where174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 05:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Ok, where's the disruptive editing174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what: you use the next fourteen days to figure us what you think you did wrong and then tell us. HalfShadow 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not do ANY THING WRONG do you admins watch blocked user talk pages? I had been using {{unblock}} the whole time because I thought admins would not look at user pages of users blocked.174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, that was a quicker response than using {{unblock}}. I am truly sorry if this was the case (see my last edit)174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For admins: I am truly sorry for abusing {{unblock}}. As I stated in my last 2 comments, I thought that user talk pages of blocked users were not monitored by admins. That's why my blocks were declined, and I concede that I had been abusing the unblock template.174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon

I do not know why you said that [2] is disruptive. Do you feel that it did not fit in the category of edit warring? He has removed the messages multiple times, on the CLAIM that I am harrasing him. The heading might infalmatorily irritate you, but the questions were just. How are you basing the claim that my previous blocks will determine my future actions. If you have such a vitriolic problem with the section heading, then you can change them. If I had to change them again, then there would be motivation to harrass. Disruption and vandalism are not categories my actions fall in.

Baseball Bugs has clearly removed the sections (5 times) without any discussion. Ryulong, if you spent half your time constructively looking at the reference desk, you would see that questions like these get asked all the time.174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

See reasons above

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=See reasons above |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=See reasons above |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=See reasons above |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

in the case this is not the correct use of the template, I suggest creating a template that would transclude, or untransclude, w/e the term is, kind of like a {{rfc}} so someone can be alerted to the blocked user's request for communication.174.3.103.39 (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.3.103.39&oldid=308630749"