User talk:12.150.161.10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 12.150.161.10, is registered to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP (US), and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block may be shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

[edit] July 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Fritter. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kuru talk 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Fritter (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Fritter, you will be blocked from editing. Kuru talk 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Fritter, you will be blocked from editing. Spartan- James 22:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
You have been blocked from editing for 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy as a result of your repeated abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} . Kuru talk 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


I should not be blocked. I wrote Hmmmm. Donuts. Everyone knows what that means. This is an outrage. This whole editing administrator function is a sham of a mockery of two shams of a mockery. You must not hide behind anonymity, Kuru. How dare you judge me. You don't know me. If I am appealing, what is the rationale? How do I know what I am appealing? "Vandalism"? This is an article about donuts. It's all common knowledge, buddy, including Homer Simpsons. Austin is a stinkhole, and I don't care for your blocking my account. Account for your existence.

I also appeal on the basis of lack of due process. I did not see the "last warning." Is that fair warning? I think not. I should be unblocked right away and given a chance to refrain from editing with my too far into the future visionary edits. Sound fair?

So I'm waiting for a response and it occurs to me: It takes you geeks about 3 seconds to reverse my useful edits, yet you don't deal with my appeal immediately. Is that what you call justice? I demand a response in the name of all that is holy.

I see -- the appeals process is a sham. Well, I know Marvin Wikipedia, have his personal email, and I am going to have him kick you off your beloved Wikipedia forever, you Wikidick.

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 didn't do anything wrong -- My comment, Hmmmm. Donuts., is germane and relevant. Please explain the unfavor characterization of "vandalism." That is preposterous and outrageous!"

Decline reason: "No it isn't, it's blatant vandalism. — Yamla 23:32, 6 July 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.

{{unblock reviewed|1=Excuse me, that is not much of an explanation. If I were accused of murder and the prosecution's case were "No, he's not innocent, he's blatantly guilty of murder," it would be thrown out in an instant. My comment adds a little humor to a subject that has inherently comic potential. And it is a reference known to all. Please give me some detail for your decision. Further, isn't it the job of the person who blocked me to present the case for suspending my wikiprivileges?|

Fine, forget it. I'm fine with the suspension.