User talk:Towers84

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Fox News Channel controversies. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ChrisLamb 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during July 16 2007

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the CNN controversies page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - auburnpilot talk 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from User talk:Towers84. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JWJW ^Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 07:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please refrain from removing sections in articles without an explanation, as you did with Fox News Channel controversies. Especially when the sections are properly cited with references. Thank you. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Fox News Channel controversies, you will be blocked from editing. /Blaxthos 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY THE HELL CAN'T I EDIT MY OWN TALK PAGE

other people can add what they want regardless of circumstanceTowers84 13:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my reasons and they were deleted two former al jezeera employee's who are Jordanian Muslims who quit fox news because the wernt critical enough on Israel does not count as a controversy!Towers84 13:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear it up, you are free to have conversations here, yes, but when you receive a warning for an improper action, that is a record of activity, and should not be removed. However, if you'd like to archive your talk page after several days/weeks/months, as many do, feel free to do that. :) ^Ariel♥Gold 13:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 1 week for disruption and making threats to continue that disruption, on the FOX talk page. Wikipedia is not a battleground for your fight against Fox news. If you cannot behave appropriately on the project your editing privileges will be revoked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fuck you!

Towers84 05:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Per your request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies#dont_remove_my_talk_posts_again.21, ANI is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. - MSTCrow 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for You have been blocked for 1 month for personal attacks against other users.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:48, 11 September 2007 (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).

Towers84 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used to quote directly: Disputes Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. An exception is made when dealing with unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. (See the BLP policy.) Cool-down blocks Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation. you had no right to block me for something said on my talk page. please take your vendetta somewhere else. i made a comment two months after the fact with nothing in between i don't see how this warrants a block and it appears to violate wikipedia's blocking policy. i hope we can rectify this soon that we may go our own seperate ways.

Decline reason:

This does not make this appropriate. Block upheld. — Yamla 22:29, 14 September 2007 (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.

whats appropriate is not the issue sir rules are rules. once again the rules are bent to fit the ruling classes whims... on that note...

op-ed piece

listen swat if you are of the govs pay-roll i may of an opertunity for you... I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swatjester/archive1#Iraq_war ... if you were to write an op-ed piece about 100-130 words about your experience and your thoughts, the getting rid of sadam a good enough reason to invade is good. they didn't want my perspective (i was in ashcanastan, and besides the warlords being inept tools and, the opium fields, sigh... nothing "newsworthy to report") anyway if you or someone similar want in on this, i have a friend in the (don't laugh) Milwaukee journal, and he owes me one. he promised me the page when I got out, unfortunately any praise i had was boring and no one wants to hear gripes about the "popular" end of the sand box. at least not in Wisconsin. none of my friends were/are in any of the iraqi cities (hell my cousins are squids!), anyway animosity aside... let me know Towers84 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the news enough as it is. See today's Washington Post, Page A1, and page A8. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I missed it, and the Posts site says their archive does not contain articles published in the last 14 days. Any chance you could send me a copy? haxorcrowbar@hotmail.com Towers84 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. I only have one comment. It is now my lives work do develop/invent something that will give me the title: disruptive technologist. too print out business cards that say that, maybe a name tag...sigh Towers84 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on User Conduct - Matt Sanchez / Bluemarine

Hello, may I ask for your participation in an RFC established for user Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez? The reason for the Request for Comment is set out in the RFC summary here. Whether you support or oppose it, your input would be appreciated.Typing monkey 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately I had only one issue on that talk page and it seems to have been solved in the mean time, therefor I must recuse myself, however i find it interesting and shall be keeping up to date. Towers84 15:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]