User talk:Knowhands enjoykeep

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — MrSomeone ^(tlk) 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the creator of this page your removal of the deletion template is inappropriate and has been reverted. If you object to the page being deleted you should follow the instructions detailed in the template. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewing administrator, I see the current version as an expansion over what was previously deleted, adding substantial discussion,not presently transwikified, and that to a considerable extent addresses the objections raised, I've declined to delete it as a repost, but I expect it will be challenged again at AfD. It would help significantly if discussion and references were added for individual items--at least some ofthem as a start.DGG (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please,

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 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 the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Djsasso (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're an idiot. You took sides of the dispute and blocked me. That's against policy, you hypocrite.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I rolled back your most recent edit to the original version which is policy. I could care less which version is the "correct" version. And attacking people is not going to help your situation. -Djsasso (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You better give me a link that says that. I certainly don't respect you enough to kiss up to you, that's for sure. I'm just telling the truth. You just fell into a snake's den.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides you did violate 3RR.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Knowhands_enjoykeep_reported_by_V-train_.28talk.29_.28Result:_24_hours.29 -Djsasso (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Djsasso blocked me even though he was involved in the edit war. That's against policy.I didn't violate the three revert rule, either.

Decline reason:

No it isn't, and yes, you did. 1 2 3 4 in a 24-hour period, with continued edit warring today. —

a/c) 22:02, 7 May 2008 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not violate the three revert rule. I only reverted three times, not four.

Decline reason:

It really doesn't matter if you did or not. 3RR does not entitle you to three reverts, especially immediately after you just got off a block for edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive, and can lead to blocks regardless of the number of edits you make. —

a/c) 15:27, 9 May 2008 (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.

Please note that personal attacks may cause your block to be extended and your talk page protected for the duration of your block.

a/c) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Pages only viewable by you do not satisfy requirements here, and will be removed by me or other editors (as has already been done). If adhering to the rules is 'whining' then I'll continue to do so and will report violations since I don't have time to deal with people and their personalities.

talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

---

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock lifted or expired. Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

If you aren't even going to make even a cursory attempt at working with other editors, then we can always start another block. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]