User talk:This, is not how we use commas.

LOL[edit]

seems legit 173.31.130.227 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lou Pearlman. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being here only to screw around. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will also not forgive you for forcing me to block someone with such a cool user name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2013 (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).

This, is not how we use commas. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm so very sorry, I seem to have overstepped. I can completely understand how my removal of all commas from a particular article could be construde as vandalism although I'm not quite sure how the insertion of 57 inappropriate ones would not be seen the same way.

With regard the article on edit warring I simply feel I was doing a service, particularly on such an important page, by removing non-words as I tend to find sentences make a lot more sense when real words are used - maybe that's just me?

It seems that with two small edits I have been painted as a trouble maker, It's like middle school all over again!

Please return my powers, I'm sat here like an impotent He-Man unable to wield my sword of punctuation! This, is not how we use commas. (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:54, 12 September 2013 (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.

Hello there,

I was very shocked to find myself, after little over an hour registered on your site, to find myself entombed in the pit of no return that is 'Indefinite Block'.

While I fully acknowledge that some faux pas was made on my part, the tirade of bullying and condesension then reigned down by people exalted in your 'community' and further reading up on the treatment of new editors by Wikipedia 'insiders' has made me extremely concerned for the future of your site, who will edit when your 'Super-Editors' retire? Can all possible future contributions from myself, or anyone else for that matter, be so arbitrarily discounted by people that appear offended at the very gall of anyone rude enough to question them (" A brand new user who changes one of Wikipedia's core policies?") Bearing in mind the change was to remove a non word (unconstrucitive) and replace with actual words (not constructive). A change that has now been re-instated by another administrator and not questioned? Is status within the community so important?This, is not how we use commas. (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]