User talk:50.80.139.102

No need to leave me talkback notices, I pay attention. Thanks anyway!

June 2011

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 102. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't patronize me and don't insult my intelligence. Those comments went against WP:Civility so I removed them. 50.80.139.102 (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 102, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I was quite clear. At this point you are also breaking WP:Civility and WP:Asume Good Faith. 50.80.139.102 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently refactoring/deleting other editors' talk page comments. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Archiving a page does not insulate it from WP:Civility. 50.80.139.102 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A cryptic one-liner unrelated to your block will not get you unblocked. You need to address and acknowledge the reason you were blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

IT WAS NOT A CRYPTIC ONE LINER. THOSE PEOPLE WERE CALLING ME NAMES AND I REMOVED THE INSULTS- I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO JUST AS I WOULD IN REAL LIFE. 50.80.139.102 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"They were calling me names" is not one of the exceptions to the WP:Edit warring policy. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

See WP:NOTTHEM. There's nothing wrong with the comments left by those editors, and if you continue modifying other's comments in archived talk pages, you will be blocked for progressively longer periods. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM is irrelevant. The administrator who reverted the edits to begin with was acting inappropriately. If comments like that were made about a registered user, they would have been reverted when they were made. 50.80.139.102 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

50.80.139.102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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 ~~~~}}

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Obnoxious admin not allowing removal of impolite talk page comments. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

---