User talk:71.185.143.145

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] June 2007

[1] - you aren't happy when people remove your question, but you have no problem with removing my answer, huh? Corvus cornix 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Stop trolling. ~ Wikihermit (HermesBot) 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing.--71.185.143.145 17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Your editing and blanking legitimate comments. ~ Wikihermit (HermesBot) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's obvious you have no interest in hearing answers you disagree with. Are you claiming I made up the Dobson quote? The first time you deleted it, yesterday, there was a link. Corvus cornix 17:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have already violated the three-revert rule to restore a trolling question to the Reference Desk. If you revert again, your editing privileges will be suspended. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

This IP is a reincarnation of yesterday's ref-desk troll 71.185.142.181 (talk · contribs). Blocked today for more rampant refdesk trolling and for repeatedly removing other user's comments from discussions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:31, 11 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: "This is so unbelievable it's almost funny. I was interested in one of the questions I saw yesterday and it was gone today, so I asked a similar question to get some answers. When Corvus cornix posts a death threat to me, assuming I'm a troll, mixed in with some resemblance of an answer, and I "remove" it, which really means I move it to my talk page, and later to the RefDesk talk page, I'm now viewed as a bad guy. Then, when it finally seems okay, and the question is generating responses and I respond as well, it gets removed again, and I get blocked. I trust that a good-hearted Wikipedian will undo this unjust block, because I believe that the concept of Wikipedia is good. However, there is a possibility that this will not happen, and if it doesn't, I think you should all think about this problem of Wikipedia's, that causes people to get blocked unjustly and have no way out because the prevailing opinion is anti-Christian."

Decline reason: "Blocking a fairly blatant troll does not make anyone anti-Christian. — Yamla 17:43, 11 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.

Your definition of a death threat is rather broad. Corvus cornix 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it clearly wasn't one to be actively carried out, but you suggested that you would appreciate my death.--71.185.143.145 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something? The response you removed appear to be this one [2] which doesn't contain any semblance of a death threat to you. At worst, perhaps you could say Corvus is supporting the death of your kids but nothing concerning you Nil Einne 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, I found out from Corvus what comment you're referring to and while it's still not a death threat at least it refers to you Nil Einne 19:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected this page for the duration of the block - the block has been reviewed and confirmed, but the anon continues to abuse the talk page to troll further,and to remove the unblock-declined notice (this edit). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)