User talk:Matt Parlow
|
I think there is no need to get it protected, there haven't been too many edits to it recently. The last edit before you was 16th of July, protection is meant for articles in the middle of edit wars, which is not happening on this page right now. Instead you should try to reach an agreement on the article on the talk page (which is actually what protection is used for - to stop edit wars until discussions are concluded). I will have a closer look at the nature of your dispute to see if I can help out. --Konstable 04:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Block[edit]
Congratulations, you've won yourself a week-long block! Adam Bishop 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Unblock request[edit]
Matt Parlow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I cannot understand it differently - rather than a) personal attack and b) a serious abuse of the administrator's licence
Decline reason:
Having looked at Talk:De Administrando Imperio I see evidence of gross incivility. It might have been better if another admin had done it, but there is no doubt that your comments there were well out of line, and you very evidently refuse to contribute beyond chopping out great chunks of the article. Why not take the time to compose a replacement version which addresses your concerns? With, of course, citations from reliable secondary sources to back it. Guy 21:52, 8 October 2006 (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.
- What is civil or uncivil - is a matter of personal preferences. Definitely, telling someone being an asshole is not civil at all and is not vlaid justification for this block. Also, finding some reasons for block post mortem - is not civil at all! Removing forgeries and inaccuracies from the article text is a serious contribution to the quality of the article and shall not be reverted under any circumstances. I really do not feel comfortabe commiting anything serious to this article having in mind that an administrator could revert it with no good reason!--Matt Parlow 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As per Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Adam Bishop for the following reason (see our blocking policy): being an asshole
Your IP address is ...
Legal action before the US court pending![edit]
Matt Parlow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I noticed this blok this morning. Due to the fact that the person signed as Duja did it baselessly - if this block is not removed and public apology given on this page - I am going to identify and take legal action against this person and Wikipedia as well - on the ground of public defamation. Deadline for unblock and public apology given is October 17, 2006
Decline reason:
Your request to be unblocked has been automatically declined for violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. Since you have expressed an intention to carry out a legal threat, all further correspondence on your part must be made in writing to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Netsnipe ► 13:11, 10 October 2006 (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.
- OK - the choice is yours!--Matt Parlow 13:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)