User talk:Schellen

Leave any messages here please…I will get back to you here…

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).

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

Request reason:

WARNING-I have been blocked for an Illegitimate reason, the Admin that blocked me WILL BE REPORTED! Disruptive editing? What the hell are you talking about?

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. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:20, 29 September 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.

Ok this is a fucking outrage? Since WHEN did what i was doing warrant "Disruptive editing?" I clearly explained my edits?

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Error by blocking admin LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). This editor should have been warned before sanctioning, as was not the initiator of the disruptive edits. Autoblock cleared.

Request handled by: LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

<redacted indef block template>I had responded to you at Talk:Humphrey Davy regarding the issue of ethnicity within nationality, and the historical cultural differences between Cornwall and the rest of England in the 17th and 18th centuries when my attention was drawn to the fact that you have been edit warring across several articles of persons who were born in Cornwall disputing that their place of birth provides reason to call them "Cornish". When I say edit warring, I mean that you are re-reverting edits to your previous version and have not attempted to discuss these changes other than to declare your disdain for "Cornish nationalists" and their supposed bias. This is not how Wikipedia works, the issue you have concerns about is the result of discussion and consensus and your approach is disruptive. I have therefore blocked your ability to engage in nationalist based revert warring. You may appeal this block by a) inferring that I am an abusive admin, or b) confirming that you will follow the appropriate processes by which consensus may be changed. Or you may threaten to sock around the block, recruit meatpuppets, and generally act like a vandal. Your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I understand, but a PERMANANT BLOCK? NO WARNINGs? Do you want me to report you when (IP) I get un-blocked? perhaps if you used you fucking brains you would realise that perm BLOCKING someone just for a few edits instead of just reverting them and warning them? And you blatent LIES about me using "Cornish nationalism" as my motive for the change was NEVER bought up by me!!!--Schellen (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Cornish language was EXTINCT IN 1777!!!!! HA!

Hello Schellen, just came across this after checking the article on Sir Humphrey Davy. While your edits were disruptive, the Admin that has blocked you is out of order in the ind block and he has also been Un-civil and bias. I'm reporting him. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resp to Schellen. My mistake, you were new to the "ethnicity" dispute and were following the edits by Misortie - you should have been warned that edit warring is improper and only sanctioned should you have continued after you continued policy violation (which, per AGF, it is assumed you would not have). The Cornish ethnicity and Cornish vs. English nationalism areas generally are very sensitive and it is important that consensus is found before embarking on edits which are likely to be the focus of dispute. This is the "warning" you should have received, and for which I again apologise for not giving and going straight to the block button. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resp to Misortie; it was in fact you who I was responding to at Talk:Humphrey Davy, and you are welcome to "report" me at ANI. I will respond further to you there or at your talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy reading your user page it seem you arnet a Cornish nationalist, infact i dunno if you see yourself as Cornish or not...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am British/European mongrel. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]