Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:45, 4 September 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User:Justa Punk, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. GiftigerWunsch 22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked your account indefinitely, as it seems clear that you have no intention of constructively helping to build an encyclopedia. You may appeal this block by placing the template {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Hersfold 23:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Basically what I have done is;

1. Solidified the SPA result that got my previous block (I'm not going to argue over User:Mal Case because he's decided not to fight it because he was being penalised for using my computer) and took out NO sock templates on the user pages of identified socks. I call that a positive contribution that had no reason for reversion.
2. Another reason for the block was a "blatant NPA violation". I took that on board and fixed it, directing it to content. I am entitled to my opinion aren't I?

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=I have the right to protect my user space under ]. There is no rule that says I can't redirect my talk page to my user page. I have already removed any personal attack from the template on my user page and I expect to be able to defend myself from return attacks until such time as they are sorted. This is not disruptive editing as I have not done any article editing and don't intend to. This account will be retired once people leave my user space alone. Oh, and calling the SITE Xenophobic is an attack on the content. Basically what I have done is; # Solidified the SPA result that got my previous block (I'm not going to argue over ] because he's decided not to fight it because he was being penalised for using my computer) and took out NO sock templates on the user pages of identified socks. I call that a positive contribution that had no reason for reversion. # Another reason for the block was a "blatant NPA violation". I took that on board and fixed it, directing it to content. I am entitled to my opinion aren't I? |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=I have the right to protect my user space under ]. There is no rule that says I can't redirect my talk page to my user page. I have already removed any personal attack from the template on my user page and I expect to be able to defend myself from return attacks until such time as they are sorted. This is not disruptive editing as I have not done any article editing and don't intend to. This account will be retired once people leave my user space alone. Oh, and calling the SITE Xenophobic is an attack on the content. Basically what I have done is; # Solidified the SPA result that got my previous block (I'm not going to argue over ] because he's decided not to fight it because he was being penalised for using my computer) and took out NO sock templates on the user pages of identified socks. I call that a positive contribution that had no reason for reversion. # Another reason for the block was a "blatant NPA violation". I took that on board and fixed it, directing it to content. I am entitled to my opinion aren't I? |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=I have the right to protect my user space under ]. There is no rule that says I can't redirect my talk page to my user page. I have already removed any personal attack from the template on my user page and I expect to be able to defend myself from return attacks until such time as they are sorted. This is not disruptive editing as I have not done any article editing and don't intend to. This account will be retired once people leave my user space alone. Oh, and calling the SITE Xenophobic is an attack on the content. Basically what I have done is; # Solidified the SPA result that got my previous block (I'm not going to argue over ] because he's decided not to fight it because he was being penalised for using my computer) and took out NO sock templates on the user pages of identified socks. I call that a positive contribution that had no reason for reversion. # Another reason for the block was a "blatant NPA violation". I took that on board and fixed it, directing it to content. I am entitled to my opinion aren't I? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Can you please try to address the actual reasons for the block, in your unblock request? Ie demonstrate why unblocking this account would help improve Misplaced Pages? Otherwise, to appeal, you could send an email. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did. Are you saying I'm not allowed to protect my user space just because I'm leaving once that's sorted? (moved rest to unblock request)

Let's discuss this instead of jumping to conclusions. !! Justa Punk !! 23:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Being as he doesn't intend to do any editing, I don't see any point in unblocking. This is what we call a self-solving problem: he's 'quitting', so why does he need an unblock? If anything, this should prevent the creation of 'like-thinking individuals' if you catch my drift. HalfShadow 23:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've explained why the unblock should occur. !! Justa Punk !! 23:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock