User talk:Firstwind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You were warned, you blanked your page and immediately recommenced your edit war. This is an encyclopedia built upon consensus, discussion and community editing, and it is my opinion that you are not interested in those values. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes i am interested in those values indeed. I already left messages on some talk pages, but especially user schcambo didn't wan't to listen anything and reverted some of my edits. I left some of his/her edits because i considered it was supporting and contributive updates, but i also reverted some of his edits because he was persisting on wrong things. For instance, this user changed some words that were originally in Am En to Br En, mixed with the rest of the article which is entirely in Am En spelling, what's the point? He also broke a link on the article of Nantes. Also, i've been accused to be a sockpuppet user (which i am not) and that i did vandalism on article i created such as Nantes tram, SEMITAN or BusWay. That is all i have to say. Firstwind (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

From my review it is my opinion that it is you who are not interested in consensus, or discussing matters civilly. I would strongly suggest that you use the unblock request option, per the block template, to request that another uninvolved admin review both my reasons for blocking, and your contention that you are not edit warring and are using dispute resolution appropriately. If a review concludes that you are not being disruptive, then you will be unblocked. I would like to comment here to any such reviewing admin, that I need not be consulted over varying the block - I will accept any reviewers actions. In conclusion, I suggest you consider your actions, and use the unblock request option. Even an admission of poor past behaviour and a promise of better conduct in the future may be sufficient for the lifting of the block. If you want to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia I really think you should give it a try. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding blanking the page - you may blank everything except the indef block template. If you abuse "your" (it belongs to Wikipedia, for your use) userpages then they may be protected so that only admins can edit it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Firstwind! I had to revert your edit because of the reasons explained above by User talk:LessHeard vanU. But please read what he said, and instead of blanking the page again (which will at one point cause your talk page to be protected), ask for an unblock and start working we the others (myself included) instead of trying to decide everything alone. I'm sure we can all take a fresh start. Mthibault (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking and Wikipedia:Right to vanish

You may wish to review the above guideline. However, it does comment that editors should be in good standing - and by blanking your page you are prejudicing any such finding. I shall blank all but this message and the block template once I have posted this. I would advise you that should you again blank this page (before being granted a Right to vanish) I will request that the page be protected from further editing by you. I recommend that you limit yourself to the actions allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now protected the page to prevent blanking per the guideline cited by LessHeard vanU. Ground Zero | t 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is now protected

per template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)