User talk:216.164.193.178

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your test

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Nancy Pelosi, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you.

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Nancy Pelosi. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Khatru2 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Nancy Pelosi, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — ERcheck (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to test how quickly they will be reverted are disruptive to the main goal of Wikipedia — creating an encyclopedia. If you want to experiment with edits, use the Sandbox. Your edit summary of "rvv" is inaccurate. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, however, vandalism is not welcome. — ERcheck (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. This is a bad idea. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they are put here because other editors think that your behavior needs improvement, and we're giving you the courtesy of letting you know. When you remove the warnings without replying, it gives the impression that you do not care that your editing behavior may be a problem. Please respond by changing your behavior, and please stop removing the warnings. Thank you. I c e d K o l a (Contributions) 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I PUT THE WARNINGS 'BACK

Um, no, I did. Removing warnings from your talk page will not remove them from your history. Also, I wanted to add I saw what you put as your unblock reason when using the {{unblock}} template, and that is unacceptable. I c e d K o l a (Contributions) 00:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your test

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Nancy Pelosi, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you.

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Nancy Pelosi. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Khatru2 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Nancy Pelosi, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — ERcheck (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to test how quickly they will be reverted are disruptive to the main goal of Wikipedia — creating an encyclopedia. If you want to experiment with edits, use the Sandbox. Your edit summary of "rvv" is inaccurate. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, however, vandalism is not welcome. — ERcheck (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. This is a bad idea. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they are put here because other editors think that your behavior needs improvement, and we're giving you the courtesy of letting you know. When you remove the warnings without replying, it gives the impression that you do not care that your editing behavior may be a problem. Please respond by changing your behavior, and please stop removing the warnings. Thank you. I c e d K o l a (Contributions) 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I PUT THE WARNINGS 'BACK

You're no longer blocked, please add constructively. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threats

You have been blocked for threats of violence[1] for a period of 48 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. — ERcheck (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2006 (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: "YOU MUST EAT SHIT BLOCKING ME AFTER I WAS UNCLOBKED FOR THE SAME REASON"

Decline reason: "No. JDtalk 00:14, 12 November 2006 (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 am sorry :P I am sad and depressed that you block me again for the same reason as the first block, and it makes me hate wikipedia and i want to die"

Decline reason: "Calling JD "Hitler" doesn't show much remorse. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:34, 12 November 2006 (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 first block — for only 15 minutes — was for disruptive editing to the Nancy Pelosi article, including an inaccurate edit summary. Your subsequent response was a threat of violence. This is completely unacceptable behavior. (Your uncivil commments are inappropriate as well.) — ERcheck (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know, I thought that free speech was allowed on talk pages. I wont do it again now that I know its not allowed. Punishment of someone who didnt know their action was a crime is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.193.178 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 12 November 2006

Please stop removing legitimate warning messages from your talk page. I c e d K o l a (Contributions) 00:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning about removing legitimate warnings from your talk page. Please do not do it again.



Please unblock me. Then I will stop resisting and I swear to God I wont vandalize and I wont do anythgni bad

You can wait for your block to expire. That's two days from now. JDtalk 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While blocked, you are able to read Wikipedia. Please take the time to review information about how to be a constructive contributor to Wikipedia. A good place to start is the main Help page. After your block expires, you are welcome to return and contribute constructively. — ERcheck (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


You said its my last warning but you didnt say the punishment! What are you going to do, Hitler, block me from editing my talk page? How bout you be a real man and trust me when I say that if unblocked I wont vandalize. Then even if I did vandalize, you could block me.

Well, yeah, if you want to put it like that. Your user talk page has been Hitler blocked from editing by you until your block expires. JDtalk 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)