User talk:52-DSL
|
Smee 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Please sing your posts with ~~~~ and use the edit summaries judiciously. The edit summaries are not there to tell off other editors or make comments about the article you are editing. Edit summaries are there for you to explain your edits. As I can see that your English is quite poor, from the way you write, it would be better that you offer comments on the talk page rather that attempt to fix grammar yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Rather that attempt to fix grammar"? WTF R U trying to say? Did u realize ur grammar is quite poor? 52-DSL 01:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't revert 3 times wtf r u talking about y r u picking on me?? is it b/c u dont like my edits or b/c u live in mementos's pocket? im sorry i hurt your friends feelings but u shouldnt pick on people 52-DSL 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You have violated the 3RR policy. I am placing a request to block at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted 3 times ur lieing and cheating by working with mementos and trieing to get other people who disagree with you and mementoes blocked 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You reverted six times today, not three. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
lol uh no 02:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC) oh btw instead off lieing more can u explain y u and mememtoes keep tryingt to get every1 banned from articles if u dont agree wit them? 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)~
No personal attacks
[edit]Regarding this comment: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
lol thats not a personal attack thats a fact if u accuse sum1 of sumthing wrong and then u go ahead and do the same thing that u told them was wrong than u r a hypocrit so dont be a hypocrit and dont cry about it when someone calls u on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 52-DSL (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)~
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
hay if i keep repeating myself and add no importent info will i start to convince u of my argument? do u no wut hypocrite meens? 52-DSL 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Non-withstanding your obvious difficulty with the English language, that is not an excuse to call other editors "hypocrite". That is a personal attack, and if you continue with these, you will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That should be "Your obvious difficulty with the English language not withstanding," but wutever. U can c that i nevar call ne1 a hypocrit i just say what a hypocrit is and im still right and if u cant handle that than 2 bad 52-DSL 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) O ya btw i m still waiting 4 u 2 anser my q "can u explain y u and mememtoes keep tryingt to get every1 banned from articles if u dont agree wit them?" 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)~
Blocked
[edit]
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:24.46.234.44_same_as_User:52-DSL_reported_by_User:Jossi_.28Result:24h.29 for a copy of the report. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfair
[edit]
52-DSL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I stopped reverting after I found out about the 3 rr rule and i am a new user and I feel like I am being treated unfairly and Momento and Jossi are exploiting the rules to discourage new users...the guy who blocked me didnt even explain that he read anything he just saw "oh look jossi is an admin and asking me to slam this new kid so Im going to do what Admin Jossi asks and slam away".
Decline reason:
You were warned, per the dif cited below. Kuru talk 04:48, 9 February 2007 (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.
- Here is a warning about the 3rr rule and here is your revert after the warning which happened to be your 6th revert within 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah i did 3 reverts. I dont see the problem and it looks like this is an admin buddy-buddy system. Jossi didnt liek what i said and so he calls u up and boom i get blocked even tho i didnt do anything wrong which is lame. So i guess now when someone disagree with u u can call on jossi to "fairly" review the case and summarily block whomever u want. awesome wiki is fair and cool! 52-DSL 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC) NEway like i said im new to these rules and as far as i saw i only reverted 3 times and even after people rereverted my stuff i didnt revert back because i didnt want to go over 3 because I SAW THE RULE so i shouldnt be blocked. this is just unfair b/c i said i didnt know the rules and once i did i stopped breaking them LIKE I SAID I DID and like PinchaseC PROVES with his quotes so please take this block off and tell me what i should do because memento and jossi are continueing to edit the crap out of the prem rawat article now that they were abel to get me blocked like they planned (probably in emails) is this sort of thing allowed b/c jossi is an admin? his opinion counts more than other peoples because he can play the "im an admin card" whenever things dont go his way? why is he an admin anyway if thats the case? people should have to be impartial 52-DSL 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is very suspect. How suddenly you master English and managed to spell every user name correctly as if by magic? You say you are new, but you quote WP:OWN on your 10th edit. You know suddenly that I am an admin. You say that you do not know about 3RR, but you say in an edit summary: "this is my third revert"[1]. I don't know, what others may think, but this is a case in which assuming good faith is not longer a viable option: "This guideline [WP:AGF] does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's obviously all a joke. This editor and IP address should be permanently blocked. They're only purpose is to waste others time.Momento 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ya i write how i wanna and i dont have to answer to u or anyon else about it. why the personal vendetta against me jossi is it b/c u pheer my grasp of english grammar? i find it very suspect that, as an admin that should be "impartial" you have invested about 85% of your energy tonight on me so whats ur problem? i didnt come looking for you but memento asks u for help and BAM im your personal project. hawt. PS it says "ADMIN TRANSPARANCY" on youre talk page so its not like its a big spooky mystery there. 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC) oh ya and on the "this is my 3rd revert" edit explaination i wrote it after you came here and starting bitching about 3 revert rules to me so thats why i said it mayb if u could read a timestamp and stop pretending theres some conspiracy other than you and mentos other admins could get to the bottom of this and see that you're just deliberately fucking with me. 52-DSL 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
52-DSL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wanted to add that after reading more about IP addresses and policies I dont think proper procedure was followed as far as checkuser requests and investigations so this ban is invalid b/c i am claiming that i only made 3 edits and that is all that has been proven. when i was aware of the 3 edit rule i stopped at 3, even though the team of jossi-momento continued to tag team revert and continue to revert other editors work now that no one is there to tell them to stop. i guess they see how much clout jossi has and they are frustrated
Decline reason:
After reviewing the article's history, it seems painfully obvious that you are the same as the IP. I'm sorry if you feel this is unfair, but the block will expire soon and you can begin carefully editing at that time.Kuru talk 04:50, 9 February 2007 (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.
52-DSL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Kuru, wut im saying is that i was warned that i could do 3 reverts and I did ONLY 3 reverts. You can see them in the history. No one's ever checked to see that those reverts were me. How can it be "obvious". And, assuming that they were me...the rule was never explained that the 3 reverets from my non-enrolled account were counted towards my new account. Jossi should have warned me. At worst, I should get off with a warning and "time served" for the duration of the block. This is grossly unfair.
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.