User talk:66.108.168.149

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am re-requesting an unblock because the premise under which my first request was denied—that I had been warned before—was completely wrong, as explained below. If you consider this "vandalism" or "blanking," the problem lies in Wikipedia, not me. 66.108.168.149 02:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(Go ahead, protect my userpage and talk page! Long live the Wikipedia muzzle!)

(What on earth are you waiting for, you hopeless aspies?)

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: "I was warned, it seems, under a "WP:POINT" rule, and then blocked twenty-five minutes later. Except I wasn't even at my computer during those twenty-five minutes—I hadn't made a single further edit. Clearly, then, the administrator had already made up his mind to block me. So why even bother with the warning? It's a kangaroo court without even the benefit of an audience."

Decline reason: "In fact, you were given a serious warning that you may be blocked with no more warnings several hours before. In any case, you don't have a right to damage the Wikipedia up puntil the point that you have received a certain number of warnings. -- Yamla 01:37, 18 January 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.

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: "I was warned, it seems, under a "WP:POINT" rule, and then blocked twenty-five minutes later. Except I wasn't even at my computer during those twenty-five minutes—I hadn't made a single further edit. Clearly, then, the administrator had already made up his mind to block me. So why even bother with the warning? It's a kangaroo court without even the benefit of an audience."

Decline reason: "In fact, you were given a serious warning that you may be blocked with no more warnings several hours before. In any case, you don't have a right to damage the Wikipedia up puntil the point that you have received a certain number of warnings. -- Yamla 01:37, 18 January 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.

  • Um, no. Look closer: that was a warning I was going to be ignored, not blocked. It was obviously meant as tongue-in-cheek humor and I felt, and still do feel, justified in interpreting it as such. Fact is, I was blocked with effectively no warning, which I don't doubt violates another one of your ridiculous guidelines somewhere. I don't really give a shit, but this does illustrate the fundamental failure of your so-called system to work to the benefit of all potential contributors. Is it any surprise to you that nobody feels like giving you the $1.5M you were asking for? 66.108.168.149 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You have no right to vandalise the Wikipedia. Why you think you have one is beyond me. --Yamla 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I resent your characterization of my vote to delete as "vandalism" simply because you disagreed with how I expressed it. No wonder everyone else thinks you Wikipedia admins are petty jackasses—perhaps you really are. 66.108.168.149 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users, and you will be able to:

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, remember to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~).--CJ King 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now how the fuck do I get rid of this obnoxious "You have new messages" banner? No wonder you pedantic aspies are having trouble cooking up $1.5M.

[edit] Your recent edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the civility policy if you would like to learn more about interacting with others. However, unconstructive accusations are considered not very nice and immediately disregarded. If you continue in this manner you may be ignored without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. MastCell 00:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • "Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others"? I'm not the one running around trying to get everything deleted for no better reason than I haven't heard of it. What, people actually turn to Wikipedia for information? "Fuck 'em, if it's not important to me, I'll make sure they can't read about it." That's what you people do every day, and you seem so fucking proud of it, it's disgusting. But carry on. I look forward to the day your project collapses because you pissed off so many people there's nobody who cares to donate anymore to Jimbo's vacation/junket slush fund. 66.108.168.149 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In case you haven't noticed, you're getting on the nerves of those who're trying to do something about things, too. Now look. You're enraged because of the deletion process. Good for you. I've lost more deletion votes than I care to remember and have wanted to snap repeatedly. I've still removed your "votes" because - as you know - they have no content other than snide remarks and insults. Try to say something that could possibly be considered constructive, or have a glass of water and read a book. Seriously. They have some really good ones. I'm going to bed after I finish this message and won't be around to see your reaction. --Kizor 01:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you have been doing to a number of Afd debates in order to make a point you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily for disrupting wikipedia to make a point. --WinHunter (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, what? You blocked me, it appears, 25 minutes after first warning me, even though I hadn't made a single edit in the interim. Is this what passes for justice on your Wikipedia? Are you surprised you inspire hate among us normal people of the world—those of us who might, but for your childish self-aggrandizement, contribute substantially to your encyclopedia?

And what makes you think my "Delete" vote was insincere? I meant every word of what I wrote. That article is patently unverifiable and ought to be deleted, according to your own autistically pedantic commandments. 66.108.168.149 01:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(Further LOL at calling me anonymous. You who hide behind invented and disposable screen names, calling people attached to publicly-visible IPs "anonymous." This site reeks of fascist doublethink. 66.108.168.149 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC))