User talk:24.173.10.197

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Matthew

Matt is not an admin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea who Matthew Fenton is? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 23:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm.. WTF.. I had a short discussion over whether or not to include commas between wikified month/day and year that ended with both of us going "Eh, not worth it". Other than that, I could care less what Matthew and his supposed compatriots do or don't do. Hope you aren't trying to get any sympathy with your spamming because I'm afraid it's going to backfire.--Bobblehead (rants) 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop....

...spaming other users talk pages regarding Matthew, it amounts to harrassment, I will block you if you continue. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You continued with further harrassment, so I've blocked you. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't give me any time to even see your request, and no "new messages" flag popped up. My comments were 100% valid, so don't censor me. Otherwise, you're supporting injustice on Wikipedia. Not cool. 24.173.10.197 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's request to have the autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been DECLINED.

Harrassment

  • Decline reason:

You have not been autoblocked. However, you have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock|your_reason_here}} to your talk page. -- Yamla 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I answered above it. Please butt out and let me resolve this with Ryan. Thanks. 24.173.10.197 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Ryan did not give sufficient time for me to read his "request", much less respond to it, before he imposed the block. Not cool, and obviously unjust."

Decline reason: "I have reviewed this block and decided that it is warranted. You violated Wikipedia policy and now you have been blocked. Wait for your block to be over. --Alison ☺ 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

>SNIFF< Golly gee whiz, I'm sorry I offended you. All I was doing was giving people a valid warning about messing around with guys like Matthew and Will. 24.173.10.197 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is all rather confusing. I received a message on my talk page so I decided to investigate and ended up here. From what I can see 24.173.10.197 spammed multiple pages between 04:32 and 10:34 on 23 June which was after he was blocked at 23:11 on 22 June. How did that occur?

I must admit, I do think that giving somebody only 4 minutes to cease and desist is a tad harsh. He should either have been blocked immediately or been given a reasonable amount of time to respond to the warning. It simply isn't fair, or just, to go to the trouble of warning somebody and then not give them time to comply with the warning.

Didja notice the admins in question were also located in England? Guess you can't blame them for supporting the Union Jack!24.173.10.197 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I also have to say that I can understand this user's frustration to a point. It seems that the person he is complaining about is somewhat aggressive in the way he reverts the edits of others without any discussion, is intolerant of the opinions of others and hypocritical in the way he applies Wikipedia rules. As I understand, both this user and Matthew are fairly young and both need to do some growing up although from what I've seen so far, one of them has a lot more growing up to do. --AussieLegend 07:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hee Hee! I wasn't aware that 32 was considered "fairly young". Thanks for the compliment! 24.173.10.197 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't take it as too much of a compliment. I was under the impression that you and Matthew were both about 15 or 16 and your actions seemed to support that belief. --AussieLegend 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planning to contribute?

So... were you planning to contribute to the project, any time soon? I noticed all of the edits coming from this IP address in the past month or so have been focused on how superevil a few users are, and while that's all well and good, it's not exactly adding anything of value to Wikipedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

Stop it. Seriously. Will (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)