User talk:FixtheBorder

Neutral point of view

Please read this policy as it relates to your edits in the

assume good faith when editing. Everyone wants the same thing: a factually accurate, neutral encyclopedia. Leebo ^T/C 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You have commented the deletion of my discussion with "IP traces back to Johnny Sutton's office". I am a DSL subscriber in Los Angeles, CA. That's far away from Texas. I doubt you traced the IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.140.59 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

You have reverted

blocked from editing temporarily. You are receiving this warning because you are new and likely were unaware of it. Keep your edits restricted to the talk page in the meantime. Leebo ^T/C 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If you remove that request for comment template again, you will be blocked. Attempting to prevent a discussion from taking place is completely inappropriate. Leebo ^T/C 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was unintentional. I have replaced the RfC template. Don't remove it again. Leebo ^T/C 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the

three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Leebo ^T/C 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FixtheBorder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yeah whatever liar. You have some fraud putting "rv v" which appears to mean "vandalism" when I put in sourced material and you blocked ME for undoing their OBVIOUS BLANKING VANDALISM. Obviously you're part of the whitewash. FixtheBorder (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not only were you edit warring, but you continued with a sockpuppet, FriendofBorderPatrol, after this block. Block extended to 48 hours. — IrishGuy ^talk 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I did not revert you with such an edit. That was a different user, who also should not be edit warring. Leebo ^T/C 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FixtheBorder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so not only are you liars pulling this crap, now you're lying about who I am and claiming I came in as someone else? TYPICAL LYING BULLSHIT from IRISHFAG!

Decline reason:

Please see

No personal attacks. Block extended to 1 week. — Mr.Z-man 21:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block evasion

You are blocked. You, the person, not just this account. If you continue to edit Wikipedia, make comments, or otherwise evade your block, then it may be extended. Continual block evasion may lead to a permanent ban. Please just go away and come back in a week. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Ramos

Please read

assume good faith when editing. Jons63 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You clearly have no intention of refraining from

living people. As such, you have been blocked for one month. Please consider this your last opportunity to read and abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FixtheBorder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

LMAO, blocked by a racist covering for another racist

Decline reason:

This user was blocked, in part, for making personal attacks. The unblock request is, in its entirety, a personal attack. Therefore, it serves more as further evidence that a block is appropriate than as a plausible reason to unblock. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.