Jump to content

User talk:SkepticAnonymous: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Do NOT delete my unblock request abusively.
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
:How nice of you, [[User:Belchfire]] to not sign your posts and not link the actual discussion, you hate-filled bigot. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous#top|talk]]) 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
:How nice of you, [[User:Belchfire]] to not sign your posts and not link the actual discussion, you hate-filled bigot. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous#top|talk]]) 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


{{unblock| How very cute. Someone comes along to do bigot Belchfire's dirty work and prevent my commenting a reply to his post.
{{unblock| How very cute. Someone comes along to do bigot Belchfire's dirty work and prevent my commenting a reply to his post. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_gay_activism&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Belchfire Belchfire created a deliberate POV fork and his commentary shows he is in no way here in good faith. }}

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_gay_activism&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Belchfire

Belchfire created a deliberate POV fork and his commentary shows he is in no way here in good faith. }}

Revision as of 22:29, 4 August 2012

Unblocked

Checkuser confirms that you have not contributed as User:98.196.233.155 (as precisely as can be determined); your initial block was most likely in error. I've unblocked you and unprotected the page; consider this a clean slate for all involved - and by that I mean if I see a hint of personal attacks aimed at another user, you're gone. Let bygones be bygones. Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

The edit summary is for describing your edit, not pointing fingers at others (on Wikipedia or elsewhere) and they were both inappropriate. I won't undelete the edit summaries and that's all I have to say about this. If you want another opinion you can try Wikipedia:Deletion review or WP:AN. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

How nice of you, User:Belchfire to not sign your posts and not link the actual discussion, you hate-filled bigot. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

SkepticAnonymous (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}