User talk:24.77.204.120

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2008 (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: "If this administrator had bothered to check their facts they would see that I reported the 3RR violation, I undid the vanalism each time, and it makes no sense to block this IP given those facts."

Decline reason: "The other editor's edits were not vandalism, so you were clearly in violation of WP:3RR. You may not edit war to get your preferred version of an article. The other editor was correctly blocked for 3RR as well. Gwernol 20:53, 8 June 2008 (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.

you in ignorance threaten to protect this page when the in the block message it says which template to use, and it isn't the one you demand idiot. the proper one was used you nepotistic f**k.
24.77.204.120 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I beg you pardon? Where have I "threatened to protect this page"? However, if you continue to make personal attacks, I will be more than happy to extend your block and protect this page to prevent you further abusing Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 21:37, 8 June 2008 (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." - the line right above the message you reply too which you conveniently ignore; you fit the category of SOBs that get admin status and then act like you are gods that can do no wrong. It has become my mission to have you reviewed for your abuse. 24.77.204.120 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, calm down, that's the standard unblock notice, its not a threat its simply information. If you can't control yourself and act in a civilized manner, please stop editing here. If you can't do that I'll extend your block. Once your block expires, you are welcome to pursue dispute resolution if you consider my conduct "abusive". However you requested that an uninvolved admin review your block, I did so. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I'm abusing anything, it simply means I disagree with you. Gwernol 21:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see my mistake (bolded it looks like a threat). but admit that injustice doesn't make you mad ever? - what does a guy have to do to report a vandal breaking the 3RR rule, none of you checked the edits to see the fact of the situation, his contradictions, his ignoring the talkpage consesus (He started another thread on the talkpage so he could ignore the discussion and do whatever he wanted), to me he is a vandal for those reasons, and NONE OF THAT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED! reiterating, what does a guy have to do to report a 3RR violation with out getting himself blocked??
24.77.204.120 (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I did check your edits and those of User:NuclearVacuum‎. As I mentioned above, NuclearVacuum‎'s edits are not vandalism. I understand that you think they are, but if you read our policy on vandalism you'll see that his edits do not fall under Wikipedia's definitions of vandalism. WP:3RR is very clear that you can only revert clear vandalism and it simply isn't the case the NuclearVacuum‎'s edits are this. If you find yourself in a situation where another editor reverts without discussion, you can request page protection. You should never resort to edit warring. I'm afraid in this case you did. Gwernol 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you make it an admin issue to add a relative clock to the block expiry date template, not necessarily a count down; it is long past the time the block should have been lifted here (5:08pm cst)? 24.77.204.120 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gliese 581 c, etc.

I noticed this technically correct, but inflammatory comment. Let's try to keep from calling other editors "piece[s]-of-s**t", okay? Pinkville (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Right... do you even know what a Deletionist is, little sister? - worse than vandals to me.
24.77.204.120 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you itchin' for a fight? Don't bother, I'm not interested. And don't bother with the condescension. Pinkville (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)