User talk:Amor fati
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
- Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
- Make your case on the article's talk page.
Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your block
In reply to your e-mail protesting your innocence:
- Amor fati <...@excite.com> an Sandstein
- What grounds do you have for accusing me of being the "sockpuppet" of someone else? Is it that unbelievable that someone besides the creator of the article has a genuine interest in the subject of the article? Is this how Wikipedia works? Anyone can simply accuse someone else of "sockpuppetry" and get their IP blocked? user:irishguy was clearly motivated and deluded in his accusation. I do actually know user:blazingnikons, he lives on the other side of the state, but I have my own opinions and think that is made quite clear in the little I have written. This is ridiculous, and I will appeal if this isn't resolved. Thank you.
Your statements are not convincing in light of your contributions, see this WP:ANI thread. If you want your block reviewed, please post {{unblock|your reason for unblock here}} on this page. Sandstein 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- The CAT:SDT tag did say that a user who had not created the page could delete the tag requesting speedy deletion if the user did not feel that it met the criteria; I did not create the page and did not feel that it met the criteria, so I deleted it.Amor_Fati 01:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
<<unblock|Well this is just ridiculous. I have never committed sockpuppetry on Wikipedia at all, and I didn't create the article; however, it is from my myspace blog, and I do know who put it on Wikipedia. I had no hand in its creation, but was grateful to those who did. I felt that most of the charges against it were bogus, and opposed them. HOWEVER, the article itself is not why I was blocked, sockpuppetry was--which I am completely innocent of. There is not and has never been a substantial case against me, though there has been against the article I merely SUPPORTED. I feel that much of the action against me has been out of certain users' agendas against the article. -- Amor_Fati 07:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)>>
- Do not overwrite the reviewing admin's comments. I have undone this. If you disrupt your own talk page, it will be protected so that you cannot edit it. Sandstein 07:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I did not overwrite it, the code was incorrect, and I was in the process of fixing it when you posted this -- Amor_Fati 07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are not autoblocked, you are directly blocked. {{unblock-auto}} is for users who have been indirectly blocked.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. Already fixed. You guys are fast. -- Amor_Fati 07:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are not autoblocked, you are directly blocked. {{unblock-auto}} is for users who have been indirectly blocked.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I did not overwrite it, the code was incorrect, and I was in the process of fixing it when you posted this -- Amor_Fati 07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome!
|
