Buffdude
Welcome
edit
|
March 2012
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Oregon Constitution, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:EncMstr with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits to User talk:EncMstr could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 7 23:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Buffdude (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, to whom it may concern: My account has been improperly blocked. Please unblock it. My account is not being used for vandalism only; it is not being used for vandalism at all evidenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duel&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. I suggest and recommend that the blocker(s) of my account are in fact the vandals and should therefore be blocked themselves. My previous statements hold factually. Buffdude (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree ... your account hasn't been used for vandalism ... because it's been used for disruptive editing instead, specifically the insertion, editing and talk page discussion of your unsourced and oh-so-clever (therefore unencylopedic) comments about the alleged misspellings in the Oregon Constitution. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2012 (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.
Buffdude (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/ find the Oregon Constitution on that page and control F "sic" or check the original copies here http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/constitution/orig/preamble.htm. I can prove that comment I left on the Oregon Constitution wiki; there is just not any published material about it. So no reason to cite it. You would have to do your own research which is what I was trying to have encmstr do so he would realize that I am right, and I'm trying to get that other info out so it can be cited. You should unblock my account for the reason that it is not a vandalism only account which is the reason that I was blocked. If youre not going to play by the rules, you will feel insulted. I didn't insult you or them, you are just sensitive. Basically, sometimes morons can't understand. If I'm not unblocked in 24 hours, I'm creating a new account.9:52pm3-22-12 Buffdude (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is an encyclopedia; your own unsourced interpretation about "a locale for morons to flourish" is patently inappropriate. Also, threatening block evasion and sockpuppetry won't get you unblocked. Kinu t/c 05:01, 23 March 2012 (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.
- No, that's valid legalese. However, lashing out at the admins will quickly lead to you not being able to edit this page. You may not create another account because that is sock puppetry, a cardinal offense here.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jasper, thanks for your message. I don't like my time being wasted so please do not post on my account further unless it is to give me your facebook account name. Thanks.
Buffdude (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand. Communicating with you further is just a waste of my time; I just create new accounts. It doesn't bother me. Oh and should I cite every word I use so you can know the exact definition intended.[sic] Buffdude (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clearly here to disrupt; unblock declined and talk page access removed. only (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2012 (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.