User talk:Velten

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Extraordinary Machine is abusing an ArbCom ruling by making up excuses to initiate blocks on me at any given time he wants. He claims I am still stalking him at two articles where I simply corrected information and formated charts. I need help here and there has to be clarification because both these are unacceptable (he and I edit the same music-related articles and the two in question I edited before he touched them) and another reason given for the block has nothing to do with the ArbCom ruling. I'm trying to participate in an RFAR discussion too, which he is now intentionally tampering with.

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=[[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] is abusing an ArbCom ruling by making up excuses to initiate blocks on me at any given time he wants. He claims I am still stalking him at two articles where I simply corrected information and formated charts. I need help here and there has to be clarification because both these are ''unacceptable'' (he and I edit the same music-related articles and the two in question I edited before he touched them) and another reason given for the block has nothing to do with the ArbCom ruling. I'm trying to participate in an RFAR discussion too, which he is now intentionally tampering with. |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=[[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] is abusing an ArbCom ruling by making up excuses to initiate blocks on me at any given time he wants. He claims I am still stalking him at two articles where I simply corrected information and formated charts. I need help here and there has to be clarification because both these are ''unacceptable'' (he and I edit the same music-related articles and the two in question I edited before he touched them) and another reason given for the block has nothing to do with the ArbCom ruling. I'm trying to participate in an RFAR discussion too, which he is now intentionally tampering with. |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=[[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] is abusing an ArbCom ruling by making up excuses to initiate blocks on me at any given time he wants. He claims I am still stalking him at two articles where I simply corrected information and formated charts. I need help here and there has to be clarification because both these are ''unacceptable'' (he and I edit the same music-related articles and the two in question I edited before he touched them) and another reason given for the block has nothing to do with the ArbCom ruling. I'm trying to participate in an RFAR discussion too, which he is now intentionally tampering with. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• The edit for simply restoring incorrectly removed info

• The edit for formatting

By the way, Bish

I think you're well aware of what the library can do. I don't blame you if you'd forgotten, but this was what I did to attract your attention. Velten 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If I'd forgotten? What's wrong with you? You said "the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans, which Bishonen acknowledged". You talking nonsense and me not replying to it, that's "Bishonen acknowledged" now? Get a grip. On reality. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

I think those links prove very clearly that you know I can unblock myself at any given time. Please stop beating around the bush. Velten 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To add, in all fairness, I think it's quite pitiful that Bishonen did all this (Nov. 2005–now!) simply because she didn't like that somebody opposed her view. Oh heavens! Can't I be saved?! Help! I'm drowning! Everything is fine when it's about someone you hate, but it's [so unfair! when it's your best friend! A shame on their biased views! I'm positive it's obvious that it's their way or no way at that. I mean, they wanted to drive a great contributor away because they thought Bishonen was wrong; oh, I'm sorry Bish! Please slave me to the death!!!!!!! Velten 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For EM

I think they've established that it's a library. Velten 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)