User talk:60.225.216.220

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Frank Lowy, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Same goes for your edits to John O'Neill and footy. Dibo 12:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not try and claim vandalism when there obviously is none. I fyou do not wish to create consensus, than good for you, but honestly, why are you wasting your time? :)

are you the same as topcattheirrefutable and ehinger and heyster and any number of other anon editors from 60.225? Dibo 13:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

...and as I read it, she said that she was also not ehinger222.

Oh Dibo, one more thing,

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Frank Lowy, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Same goes for your edits to John O'Neill and footy.

13:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)60.225.216.220

i didn't edit either John_O'Neill or Frank_Lowy. Dibo 13:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like from here [[1]], you did edit o'neill with the usual vandalism. Again, why are you wasting your time with this :)

It looks like you have been warned twice tonight - I think a block is now warranted. -- Chuq 13:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Chuq, I was warned once and I did not agree at all that it was vandalism, and what is this tonight crap, it is bright and sunny here baby.

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 have been blocked based on frivolous accusations of vandalism from an editor who is making agressive changes and did not wish to talk about it."

Decline reason: "Your edit summaries were far from civil, so I'm upholding your block. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:11, 5 October 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: "Do not feel that it was properly reviewed. REPEAT- I DID NOT VANDALISE A THING!!!! DOES ALL IT TAKE IS SOMEBODY STICKING A VANDAL NOTE ON YOUR PAGE TO GET BLOCKED? Poor form from all those invloved, because I have not done a thing."

Decline reason: "You're edit-warring and violating WP:NPOV, so my decision is final. In fact, it's quite obvious that you're Ehinger222 as well so consider yourself lucky I'm not extending this block for WP:SOCK violations. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:18, 5 October 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.

"it's quite obvious that you're Ehinger222 as well so consider yourself lucky I'm not extending this block for WP:SOCK violations."

What sock violations are you talking about? I have contributed loads to this thing, only to have some freak with an obsession spend a month making no contribution but stalking, trolling on pages that he/she/it did nothing to create. I have shown willingness to compromise and educate myself on acceptable content matter, but I do not stick to a distict protocol because frankly I just seek to contribute in relative peace. The edit wars have been started by others, have a geeze at the content... and they stick to what I think is counter productive references to soccer as football and changing references from football to rl.

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: "Please state the reason which accompanied the respective unblock request.
If none is available, use {{Request denied}} instead."

Decline reason: "A reason would be nice. Daniel.Bryant 05:54, 6 October 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.