User talk:TrollhunterX

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Parmjit Dhanda has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Parmjit Dhanda constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Parmjit Dhanda. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Parmjit Dhanda. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- Ed (Edgar181) 11:45, 24 July 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

No, I think the block was reasonable, although I only persisted at the end because it felt as though F-s was waiting to pounce on my edit, which galled me. It helps that the block is only for a day. I can imagine Wikipedia making a lot of enemies if it practised the kind of suspensions some message boards mete out, even for a first offence. As it is, I've been using the day (including many hours before I even knew I'd been blocked) to ponder on creating an article which will address the website issue, and which I can link to the PD entry. This would be much less like 'vandalism', but the problem is that evidence for the political bias of PD's website admin is difficult to come by. It's just the word of anyone who posted a comment that didn't appear on the site, against the admin's. It's a tad controversial, a bit local interest, and notability is a problem, inasmuch as anyone is interested in the website except maybe no more than one person who thinks all opinions should be reflected. But I'll work on the page tomorrow, and peruse other pages to get an idea of what is permissable

Decline reason:

Please do not use this template to say that you deserve to be blocked. The vandalism was the way in which you voiced your concern: in the article itself. — Selket ^Talk 23:19, 24 July 2008 (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.

Now I'm back, I have two things to say about that. Firstly, there were two references of 'vandalize' (funny how no-one ever says 'vandalizm') before my in-page comment, so that's simply wrong. Also, although I have asked how to directly contact an administrator, and in my travels seen that it is possible to email one, no contact info has been forthcoming. I have no reason to think that the forces of alteration opposing me don't have much better access to the admin than I have, and get less snippy responses. And that's all I have to say about that.