User talk:Saint Pancake By Irn

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).

Saint Pancake By Irn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Block Evasion" for protesting a username block? What. The. Fuck?

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 14:24, 26 February 2010 (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.

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).

Saint Pancake By Irn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So let's see. I was blocked because I protested against people who don't bother to follow policy, who did not bother to inform me I was being discussed somewhere as required by policy, and because I had a problem with a fucked-up, shittily-programmed bot that constantly removed my attempt to reply to the discussion when I was finally able to hunt it down. That seems to about sum it up. Or if that is NOT the reason for the block, please, enlighten me as to what the everloving fuck it was. Because really, watching my username get attacked by some moron who can't tell the difference between a tear gas canister, and a "canister shot" which is basically a tank-fired grenade, and deliberately misquotes a story to insert the latter, is irritating beyond all belief.

Decline reason:

You obviously know all about the significance of the term "Saint Pancake", which indicates that your intention is not to edit with any form of neutrality. I have corrected the canister shot items; being correct in one point does not excuse the extensive revisions that you made before that to insert your point of view, nor does it negate the implications of your original username. Acroterion _(talk) 14:46, 26 February 2010 (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 wasn't trying to remove this, and I wholeheartedly take exception to your unfounded assertions about my chosen username. Your system needs to be fixed to make it possible to clean up and put comments in without other things getting lost in the shuffle.

The system works well, but it can't prevent you from highlighting previous comments and hitting your 'delete' key. If you want to avoid removing content from your talk page, just don't remove content, and the system will not remove it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and good but all I have been doing is going in, inserting my comments, and hitting "Save page." I haven't been deleting anything at all and I don't know why they are getting overwritten when I make my comments.

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).

Saint Pancake By Irn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So let's see. I was blocked because I protested against people who don't bother to follow policy, who did not bother to inform me I was being discussed somewhere as required by policy, and because I had a problem with a fucked-up, shittily-programmed bot that constantly removed my attempt to reply to the discussion when I was finally able to hunt it down. That seems to about sum it up. Or if that is NOT the reason for the block, please, enlighten me as to what the everloving fuck it was. Because really, watching my username get attacked by some moron who can't tell the difference between a tear gas canister, and a "canister shot" which is basically a tank-fired grenade, and deliberately misquotes a story to insert the latter, is irritating beyond all belief.

Decline reason:

Personal attacks aren't the way to get unblocked--and your choice of username convinces me you're not here to help us. Talk page disabled. Blueboy 96 15:30, 26 February 2010 (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.

You were informed by User:Irn that your user name was against the rules. Your username was then blocked, because it was against the rules. There was no need to direct you to the discussion, which was simply clarifying the violation for people who didn't understand the "Saint Pancake" reference- you already understand it. Your block has nothing to do with tear gas canisters, as it says in the note on your talk page, on your block template, on my talk page, and on my previous note to you, which you have read and removed from this talk page. I don't understand, given that you've been clearly informed of the reason for your block four times by three different people, how you are still confused about it, nor do I understand why you would remove a clear, polite explanation from your talk page, then claim that you do not understand. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was "informed" by "Irn" at a time when I was NOT AT MY COMPUTER. By the time I returned, I was completely blocked off and all discussion gone. And BTW, "Irn" once got blocked for edit-warring on a FOOD article, and proceeded AFTER the bad-faith attack on my name to go ahead and stick the nonsense and biased garbage like the canister-shot thing right back in the article.

It is obvious to me that the "username block" crap was just a ruse, a pretext. Something which is supposed to be very much against Wikipedia's rules. If someone wanted to have a problem with my username, they could say something directly to me and have the discussion, but oh no, Irn's goal was to throw a block around and hold "discussions" behind my back?

{unblock-un|How About This One Joe Schmuckington?} Are you sure you want to be User: How About This One Joe Schmuckington?? It's kind of long, and still sounds a bit like an insult. And including a question mark in your username will be a bit confusing when you're making comments- it'll make everything you say seem like a question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. I'd rather have the username I picked out in the first place. I was rather making a point about the inanity of all the garbage I am being subjected to over this, including the constant removal of my attempts to reply to the "missing" discussion, the malfunctioning, shittily programmed bot, and the fact that Tnxman307 decided to block my old username so thoroughly that I can't even post a reply to that talk page any more. You people love to attack, anger, and harass people don't you?

On the other hand, it'll work as a username as well as any other.

Funny, you did it again - you removed my comment explaining why the bot was removing your edit, and replaced it with your claim that you don't understand why the bot was removing your edit. It hurts my feelings when you do that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why it keeps doing that as I try to insert my own reply comments. It happened to Acroterion above too apparently. Your crappily-coded website may have something to do with it. Don't get your undies in a bundle.

Actually, it didn't: I put it back for you. My comments stand. You can't blame the website for your pointedly chosen username or your edit history. Acroterion _(talk) 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the bot's fault that you are putting comments where they don't belong. It isn't the web site's fault that you are removing content from your talk page. It isn't other users' fault that you chose an insulting username and added your opinions to Wikipedia. You are fully responsible for your own actions, and I am fully responsible for my own decision to stop trying to help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My request for a new username is filed. You're choosing to blame me for trying to reinstate a discussion I was not informed of, despite Wikipedia policy requiring that I was to be informed of it. You're choosing to blame me for "deleting" something I did not delete. And no, I did not actively try to delete anyone's comments from my talk page. Either give me my changed username, or make me choose another, whichever your little heart desires.