User talk:RBLakes

Please stop adding items about the Benoit tragedy not germane to the article, Wikipedia talk pages are not a general discussion forum about the subject. Thank you. SirFozzie 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eldora

Why do you keep removing the citation-needed tag from the Eldora article? As far as I see, there is no citation provided in the article for this assertion. Nyttend 05:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Common knowledge

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Eldora, Iowa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nyttend 11:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the reference! Nyttend 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ridernyc 09:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC) The articles are not subject to delection, the debate supports keeping. P.S. do not threaten me sucka. Removing all the tags again. P.S. show me where you are the boss of Wikipedia? Can you do that?

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ridernyc 09:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC) YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS, STOP GIVING ME ORDERS! You too should "comment on the articles" and not try to be the boss man you are not. I did comment, READ IT. The deletion nomination IS VANDALISM. The Policy states that discussion is FIVE DAYS and the majority DO NOT SUPPORT DELETE. Do not contact me again, unless you can prove you have authority. RBLakes 10:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for removing AfD notices

Hello. Your account has been temporarily blocked due to your disruptive edits, in particular your continual removal of AfD notices before the AfDs have been properly closed. You were notified about this above yet you have continued removing the templates. Perhaps you have misunderstood the AfD process. Please let me know if I can enlighten you further on this issue. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was cleaning up vandalism, and the policy supports what I was doing. my edits where not disruptive, and Ridernyc came all at me like he was the king of wikipedia, and insults me with threats and then tells me to comment on the articles when HE GETS ON ME. Explain to me how Ridernyc is the boss and gets to threaten people and make decisions? Those deletion nominations were vandalism, and the debate should be closed because it has been 5 days. Show me direct evidence that I violated policy and I will never edit as long as I live.

Decline reason:

The evidence you are asking for is actually on the AfD tags you have been removing- they say, "this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed." Editors who think an article should be deleted, even if they disagree with your opinion, are not automatically vandals. Even if the articles are kept by the community, it doesn't mean that no one is allowed to suggest deletion. There is no 'boss' on Wikipedia- we all follow and enforce the same rules, and that's what Ridernyc did. He did a good job, and we all thank him for repairing the disruption you were causing to the deletion discussion. The discussion began, according to the history, on October 15, which was not five days ago, and even if it were, people who are involved should not be closing the discussion, and only people who know how to close an AfD discussion should do so. Please, try to learn more, and be more civil to other editors. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 October 2007 (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.

Fuck you then bitch. Tell me to "learn more" Why don't you learn how not to be a fucking bitch and learn not to try and diss me in your little way? Fuck you Ridernyc, mother fucker. Fuck you too, zzuuzz. Fucking assholes. Ok, so let fucking assholes ride all over town and hook up to every fucking free wifi access and vote delete. Just fucking doing the right thing and mother fuckers want to block me, and diss me. You fucking learn more bitch, and you can fucking suck it ho. And no one fucking thanks that piece of shit, bitch. Say I was disruptive, that's fucking libel. Want to hear from my lawyer, trashbag ho? Be big motherfuckers behind your screen, but feel free to stop by my house. Try to fucking block me in my fucking house. Pussies would run and scream and cry, shove this piece of shit Wikipedia up your fucking ass! I'm done. Oh and NYC is a town for pussies.

Given the nature of this response, and your edits, I do not think that a three hour block is appropriate, and I have changed the length of your block to one week. I hope this will give you time to think about whether or not you are interested in participating in Wikipedia in a more appropriate way.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for removal of AfD tags, incivility, and personal attacks. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

FisherQueen gets to insult me, and I get blocked more? That line "Learn more" is a nice way of totally insulting me, and I am seriously taking it personal. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. Those were there on the 12th. I am sick of being insulted by cowards behind computer screens. Ridernyc and Fisherqueen were not civil to me, they personally insulted me, just not directly. Do we need to get the lawyers involved?

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=FisherQueen gets to insult me, and I get blocked more? That line "Learn more" is a nice way of totally insulting me, and I am seriously taking it personal. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. Those were there on the 12th. I am sick of being insulted by cowards behind computer screens. Ridernyc and Fisherqueen were not civil to me, they personally insulted me, just not directly. Do we need to get the lawyers involved? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=FisherQueen gets to insult me, and I get blocked more? That line "Learn more" is a nice way of totally insulting me, and I am seriously taking it personal. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. Those were there on the 12th. I am sick of being insulted by cowards behind computer screens. Ridernyc and Fisherqueen were not civil to me, they personally insulted me, just not directly. Do we need to get the lawyers involved? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=FisherQueen gets to insult me, and I get blocked more? That line "Learn more" is a nice way of totally insulting me, and I am seriously taking it personal. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. Those were there on the 12th. I am sick of being insulted by cowards behind computer screens. Ridernyc and Fisherqueen were not civil to me, they personally insulted me, just not directly. Do we need to get the lawyers involved? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}