User talk:Atraxus

Atraxus!

I love you baby Grunners 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Silly People

Your recent edits can hardly be considered any better than vandalism. Please stop. MrZaius^talk 23:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --ElKevbo 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Robert Mugabe, you will be blocked from editing.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_18#Category:Silly_People. MrZaius^talk 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing a XfD template from a page with an open discussion ongoing is considered blatant and obvious vandalism. MrZaius^talk 23:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Reported to vandalism noticeboard

It was removed by accident. You seemed quick enough to put it up the first time. Can't you spare a few seconds of your obviously hectic thought policing schedule to put it back? Atraxus 23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing 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.

LessHeard vanU 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with Atraxus) Umm... Atraxus doesn't actually seem to be blocked. See this edit, and block log. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

No reason specified for block

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=No reason specified for block |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=No reason specified for block |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=No reason specified for block |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

So what about that edit? He's allowed to call me a 'troll' rather than dealing with my initial input and I'm not allowed to respond? Atraxus 00:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, you don't understand. My comment was not meant to be saying anything about the content of that edit. Simply that User:LessHeard vanU added a comment to your page saying you were blocked, when you are not. Likewise your unblock request is useless, as you aren't actually blocked to begin with. The link I posted was merely demonstrating that you have made posts to other pages, which is not possible for a blocked user. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my gripes weren't aimed at you anyway. You're just trying to sort it out! Atraxus 00:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)