Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.
Unblock request denied. An intentionally unproductive (if not intentionally damaging) edit to someone else's userpage is vandalism; this is clear vandalism; this, while not a personal attack, is incivil; and this is what talk pages are for (it is considered impolite to alter a user's page if there is no breach of policy). You also are violating WP:POINT by intentionally pressing to see what you can get away with. RadioKirk (u|t|c)02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Citing the same 3 diffs. One trying to offer advice on a recent userpage change [1]. An honest attempt to make a huge image load better on a slower connection edit. I'm not sure what part of "These pages contain material which is kept because the contents are considered humorous. They are not intended, nor should they be used, for any research or serious use." was misunderstood? This I guess? I certaintly saw some humor there. Revert - fine - but blocking is overkill.
The last two were supposed to be a single reference, my error; however, the remainder of my reply stands. Changing a page so it "loads faster" is generally reserved for long, oft-visited pages like the administrators' noticeboard—in this case, it creates the appearance that the recipient was specifically targeted. There is as yet nothing constructive from this account; we hope that changes, but if its purpose is to ridicule other users rather than to write an encyclopedia, a 31-hour block is comparatively tiny. RadioKirk (u|t|c)04:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
