User talk:75.161.145.130

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Nation of Islam. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Strothra 13:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Nation of Islam, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Strothra 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent gross incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. DarkFalls talk 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

{

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: "Shouldn't somebody talk to the people who persistently reverted my constructive edits without giving any reason? That sort of behavior should be considered vandalism, and I don't see why it is that one cannot sympathize with my fury at seeing my edits reverted repeatedly without reason given whatsoever. I could easily accept a block were my adversaries to be chided for their rash behavior."

Decline reason: "I can sympathize with being mad, but including "Jesus, brown people suck" in edit sumamries or "Niggers were trying to trick us. WHITE POWER!!!!" in your first edit (when you should not have been mad) are totally inexcusable. You're lucky that you got a sympathetic blocking admin. I would have given you a little more than 3 hours. — Mr.Z-man 04:27, 16 September 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.

See Wp:cite#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22 in regard to what to do when a link is dead. You don't remove it - particularly when an EL is incorrect only due to a minor typo. You also don't make hate slurs and offensive remarks to other editors. Reviewing admin should please note that the use of "adversaries" in reference to editors shows that the user has little to no understanding of why he's blocked in the first place (ie WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF). --Strothra 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, no link was removed from the page. The section of the link that caused the 404 error was removed in order so that the link could resolve to the proper page.. Secondly, the link in question was an external link, not a reference link, therefore your citation of the Wp:cite page is entirely irrelevant. Lastly, my use of the word "adversary" in that context was meant to mean "one that contends with" (the Merriam-Webster definition of the word). Given that there has been plenty of contention in this particular matter, I see no reason why this should be taken as offensive in any way. The simple fact is sir, that you acted rashly in your reversion of my edits, no matter how many times I asked that you look before you revert. That is clearly prejudicial, and in this case quite unwarranted. This therefore, lead to severe irritation on my part, and I responded in kind with rash action of my own. I cannot defend this action, but I can show that it found it's root cause in indefensible actions of your own.--75.161.145.130 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)