User talk:RBLakes
Please stop adding items about the Benoit tragedy not germane to the article, Wikipedia talk pages are not a general discussion forum about the subject. Thank you. SirFozzie 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Eldora
[edit]Why do you keep removing the citation-needed tag from the Eldora article? As far as I see, there is no citation provided in the article for this assertion. Nyttend 05:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Common knowledge
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Eldora, Iowa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nyttend 11:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the reference! Nyttend 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
October 2007
[edit]
Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ridernyc 09:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The articles are not subject to delection, the debate supports keeping. P.S. do not threaten me sucka. Removing all the tags again. P.S. show me where you are the boss of Wikipedia? Can you do that?
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ridernyc 09:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC) YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS, STOP GIVING ME ORDERS! You too should "comment on the articles" and not try to be the boss man you are not. I did comment, READ IT. The deletion nomination IS VANDALISM. The Policy states that discussion is FIVE DAYS and the majority DO NOT SUPPORT DELETE. Do not contact me again, unless you can prove you have authority. RBLakes 10:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for removing AfD notices
[edit]Hello. Your account has been temporarily blocked due to your disruptive edits, in particular your continual removal of AfD notices before the AfDs have been properly closed. You were notified about this above yet you have continued removing the templates. Perhaps you have misunderstood the AfD process. Please let me know if I can enlighten you further on this issue. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
RBLakes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was cleaning up vandalism, and the policy supports what I was doing. my edits where not disruptive, and Ridernyc came all at me like he was the king of wikipedia, and insults me with threats and then tells me to comment on the articles when HE GETS ON ME. Explain to me how Ridernyc is the boss and gets to threaten people and make decisions? Those deletion nominations were vandalism, and the debate should be closed because it has been 5 days. Show me direct evidence that I violated policy and I will never edit as long as I live.
Decline reason:
The evidence you are asking for is actually on the AfD tags you have been removing- they say, "this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed." Editors who think an article should be deleted, even if they disagree with your opinion, are not automatically vandals. Even if the articles are kept by the community, it doesn't mean that no one is allowed to suggest deletion. There is no 'boss' on Wikipedia- we all follow and enforce the same rules, and that's what Ridernyc did. He did a good job, and we all thank him for repairing the disruption you were causing to the deletion discussion. The discussion began, according to the history, on October 15, which was not five days ago, and even if it were, people who are involved should not be closing the discussion, and only people who know how to close an AfD discussion should do so. Please, try to learn more, and be more civil to other editors. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 October 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.
Fuck you then bitch. Tell me to "learn more" Why don't you learn how not to be a fucking bitch and learn not to try and diss me in your little way? Fuck you Ridernyc, mother fucker. Fuck you too, zzuuzz. Fucking assholes. Ok, so let fucking assholes ride all over town and hook up to every fucking free wifi access and vote delete. Just fucking doing the right thing and mother fuckers want to block me, and diss me. You fucking learn more bitch, and you can fucking suck it ho. And no one fucking thanks that piece of shit, bitch. Say I was disruptive, that's fucking libel. Want to hear from my lawyer, trashbag ho? Be big motherfuckers behind your screen, but feel free to stop by my house. Try to fucking block me in my fucking house. Pussies would run and scream and cry, shove this piece of shit Wikipedia up your fucking ass! I'm done. Oh and NYC is a town for pussies.
- Given the nature of this response, and your edits, I do not think that a three hour block is appropriate, and I have changed the length of your block to one week. I hope this will give you time to think about whether or not you are interested in participating in Wikipedia in a more appropriate way.
RBLakes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
FisherQueen gets to insult me, and I get blocked more? That line "Learn more" is a nice way of totally insulting me, and I am seriously taking it personal. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. Those were there on the 12th. I am sick of being insulted by cowards behind computer screens. Ridernyc and Fisherqueen were not civil to me, they personally insulted me, just not directly. Do we need to get the lawyers involved?
Decline reason:
Legal threats are not tolerated here. I have extended your block to indefinite. — SQL(Query Me!) 11:39, 17 October 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.
RBLakes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
no legal threat was made. These blocks are unjust.
Decline reason:
Based on the comments you made above on this talk page, many of which violate WP:CIVIL and WP:LEGAL, an indefinite block seems like you're getting off with a slap on the wrist. I've also protected this talk page from further abuse of the unblock template. --Kinu t/c 12:12, 17 October 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.
- Oh? [1], "Do we need to get the lawyers involved?" Sure sounds like one to me. If you continue to abuse the unblock template, I will protect this page from editing. SQL(Query Me!) 11:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)`
- Notice also above, "Say I was disruptive, that's fucking libel. Want to hear from my lawyer, trashbag ho?" Another legal threat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I demand that Florence Nibart-Devouard or Jimmy Wales hears my case. Admins should not take to insulting people in violation of policy. I have been unfairly targeted because I made edits that Ridernyc didn't agree with and I took exception to being threatened and insulted. Users should have a right to stand up to being insulted, and attacked. I stood up for myself and was blocked for doing so. I get ganged up on by admins when one of them insults and attacks me because I stood up for myself. This is wrong, and you admins and Ridernyc is wrong.
- No, in the end, you got blocked for making repeated legal threats, for which, we pretty much have zero tolerance. You may contact Jimbo via e-mail at This link, or, you may request unblocking via the Unblock-en-l e-mail list which can be found here. As far as Florence Nibart-Devouard, I haven't a clue who you're talking about. SQL(Query Me!) 12:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
A second chance
[edit]Wikipedia can be very frustrating, and it's understandable that you were pretty pissed off at being blocked. I've been blocked a few times myself, and I know how it feels. However, even if you disagree with how we do things, acting like that just makes things unmanageable, and you get blocked for even longer. Hopefully now you understand that we don't let editors insult other editors like that, and we don't let people make legal threads (which is considered a very serious issue). No matter how mad you are, even if you are right and the other guy is wrong, you can still be blocked. It sucks, but bite the bullet and wait for the block to end. We want you to edit here, and we want you to have a say in how we do things, but you have to act mature about it. If you have cooled off, and promise us you won't fly off the handle like that again, we can give you a second chance. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)