User talk:74.13.202.11

August 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fluffernutter. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow... You my friend are seriously lacking in sense of humor. I'm not sure how my edits were "unconstructive" per say, when I look at the very constructive question. Or maybe IP editors are subject to a weird form of hostile scrutiny? Anyways... Hope you can find your sense of humor in the lost and found one day. 74.13.202.11 (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I am not your friend, in fact I don't even know your name, nor you mine.
2. Lacking in sense of humour? I'm not sure how you can know that on the basis of the slight experience of me that you have.
3. I guess you probably mean "per se". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent unhelpful editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which forging another user's signature might be acceptable, whether intended as a joke or otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well well well, Mr. Serious. Fine, this IP is blocked. This is seriously silly, though. If I made the edit while logged in none of this would have happened, and this IP wouldn't be blocked 31 hours for a very silly reason. I don't know why Sonia reverted me in the first place, in fact I'm very worried about that, she used to be a very nice editor - but she must have her reasons. As for your answers, they are as silly as your reverts and your block is, since they don't even address the substance of my edits. But whatever. Humor is gone. I'm gone (well not really, but let's pretend). 74.13.202.11 (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) and really, you're blocking this IP for forging a signature with an obvious WP:SNOW? Jesus Christ... 74.13.202.11 (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is the silliest block I've seen in years of editing Wikipedia (and I'm not mentioning these are the silliest reverts, too). But fine, here's a boilerplate : "I acknowledge the reasons and I won't do it again, I promise." Now, a serious question : are IP editors automatically vandals? Because I'm pretty sure if I made the same edits while logged in, none of that would have happened. Now let's have an RFC about user retention... or maybe not. 74.13.202.11 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

1. Integrity of a user's name is important. 2. Edit warring with admins is not cool. 3. The block duration fits the crime. 4. Editor does not show remorse. 5. Sonia is a very nice editor. 6. I'm real happy for you 74.13, and I'ma let you finish, but "Over 9000" is the most overused meme of all time! Dcoetzee 09:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

If you had made that edit while logged in, I would have still reverted you. sonia♫ 09:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course you would have! 74.13.202.11 (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Okay Dcoetzee, I'm not going to contest this block (i.e. disregard this request) 1. Fine. 2. Fine. 3. What crime? There was no crime in the first place, it was a very silly revert by sonia. 4. Fine. 5. Yes, she is, but this revert was silly, and I'm genuinely worried. 6. Agreed, but the silly question warranted a silly answer though. Oddly enough, the silly question wasn't reverted, only the silly answer was. This raises a lot of questions. I'm logging back in now, bye. I hope you people retrieve your sense of humor soon. 74.13.202.11 (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request, more of a clueless WP:SOAP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.