User talk:Knotslanding

Archives

Protected

I have protected your talk page as you are clearly abusing the unblock process by merely copying and pasting the same rationale despite being shown where you have violated 3RR. Also, WP:3RR is very clear that the reverts do not have to be to the same content. --Smashville^talk 06:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. You know damn well I did not violate the 3RR rule. but whatever either way had NO BUSINESS even sticking their nose in the monorail article. But yet they kept on harassing me until they convinced other s that I was a danger and got me blocked. This it to either way and the other so called moderators that came in harassed me on the 24th of Dec. DO NOT TALK TO ME, DO NOT LEAVE MESSAGES IN MY TALK PAGE. I WILL NOT READ THEM AND I WILL DELETE THEM. If you have something to say. go tell it to your little group of friends. Knotslanding (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Knotslanding, you have been warned by several administrators that your behaviour is not acceptable (cf. [1], [2] and [3]). Despite this clear warnings, you started edit warring immediately after your block on the same article again ([4]). In addition to that, your are clearly violating WP:CIVIL: [5], [6]. This behaviour (edit warring and incivility) can not be tolerated. Thus, I am going to block you for 3 days. If you continue behaving like this in the future, this will result in an indefinite block. — Aitias // discussion 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Bull. This is crap and I am going to file a report on you as well for this. I have done NOTHING wrong and you know it. What the heck are you either ways little pimp when they go around harassing people, you step in and block the person for fighting back? I will be making phone calls about this. You both are abuse of power. Knotslanding (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 3 days I WILL come back and RE FIX the incorrect information in the article. Knotslanding (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is not the case. As has been stated before HeadMouse, your sockpuppets are not welcome here. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must be nice to think you know everything. But I hate to break it to you. I am not "head mouse". It seems to me that ANYONE that comes into the article and puts in valid information and tried to keep it there is assumed to be "head mouse" without any positive proof or evidence. Other then the fact that both persons have fought to keep the article correct, you have nothing linking me to them. Wait, I know whats going to happen now. your going to claim that you have done a trace on the computes and that we both use that same computer. Well again I hate to break it to you, but i have been on 3 different computers that past week. So that excuse won't work. You are wrong and you know it. What are you going to do to the next poor person that comes in trying to fix the article. you going to ban them too and say they are head mouse? You really need to grow up and get over yourself. Knotslanding (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good bye

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kralizec! (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EXCUSE ME???? Sock puppet???? I don't think so. REMOVE THIS NOW!! Knotslanding (talk) 23:03, 26 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I AM NOT A SOCK PUPPET OF ANYONE. THIS BLOCK NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

Decline reason:

Uh, no. And the legal threat below is noteworthy. seicer | talk | contribs 23:14, 26 December 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.

I will be making phone calls about this Monday morning. Knotslanding (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a legal threat as well? --Smashville^talk 23:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say I was calling an lawyer??? Jesus Christ you people try to start trouble don't you. I will be calling Wikipedia. Knotslanding (talk) 23:18, 26 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I AM NOT A SOCK PUPPET. THIS ACCUSATION IS IN VALID WITH NO PROOF. THIS BLOCK IN UNJUST AS WELL.

Decline reason:

You just happen to have the same incivility and SPA attitude on the same article as HeadMouse. Plus, your incivility and continued edit warring and above notice that you would not stop edit warring are enough in and of themselves to block you indefinitely. — Smashville^talk 23:25, 26 December 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.

So because there is more then one person in the world that wants to see this article with correct information, then they MUST all be the same person. Until you have proof that I am a sock puppet then this block in unjust. Knotslanding (talk) 23:29, 26 December 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).

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

Request reason:

There has been no proof or evidence shown that I am a sock puppet. Until such proof or evidence is provide, this block in unjust.

Decline reason:

Even without that, you all but say you have every intention to continue edit warring. Sorry, we don't need this here. Talk page protected.— Blueboy 96 01:14, 27 December 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.