User talk:Crosleybendix
June 2015[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Crosleybendix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: personal attacks" Ding! Wrong. Clearly, your assumptions of my intent would not even hold up in a court @moscow-disneyland. For starts, you ignore the very contributions you obscured. Secondly, there is the issue that my refusal of final & absolute obedience to lord @john was also obscured in your actions. Are you guys pals? I don't expect you to answer that or anything else more specific that might insult whatever it is that you believe yourselves to be doing of such high importance as to silence a voice. This is not a "personal attack", it is a personal defense, perhaps you don't know the difference. If not, & your policies are so golden & absolute, then why am I forced to speak to you? If you busy fellows would mind your own business & stop shoving sticks into my spokes, you would not have any problems with me. I could then get along & add my little three sentences to an article simmering in it's own juices out in on the edge of Dryhumpistan . Rather I have come to expect in the short time here more silencing, bureaucracy, misconstrued accusations, & a general getting-in-the-way-of a rather trivial pursuit of making a few long overdue improvements on a page. I'm starting to get a glimmer of the reasons for such inertia. How many thousands of others with a slightly different view of the world than that of the cult you are policing, would care enough to spend the amount of time I have, before giving up & moving along to some more reasonable activity? Crosleybendix (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
Crosleybendix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thanks for taking a look at the request. It looks fine to me. Can you be more specific? Crosleybendix (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with the blocking admin that you don't seem to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2015 (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.
Crosleybendix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
He didn't say that, he said my words were not acceptable to him. Which makes me wonder why he is reading them. It seems to me inconsistent with your policies, that you might hide from me words removed from the record. It doesn't directly follow that I should tie you to a chair & interrogate you. Especially as I would be ignorant of your intent in participating in these odd practices; even though it seems to me that you don't have much energy for words, even though you are game for a quick kick in the noobs ribs. Crosleybendix (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Hmm. Interesting. Your arrogance and contemptuously dismissive attitude to all other editors with whom you have any disagreement is undesirable, but when you go beyond that and start personal attacks it becomes unacceptable, and would justify a limited block. Add to that your edit-warring, combined with statements which make it perfectly clear that you have no intention of doing anything other than trying to force your own preferred version through, with no wish to compromise or to work towards reaching agreement, and we have an editor who is never likely to fit in to the way Wikipedia works, and an indefinite block becomes justified. When we add to that the nonsense you have posted in the form of unblock requests, and it begins to look as though you are either deliberately trolling or else so blind to the nature of what you are doing that you are probably incapable of collaborating with other editors, rather than just unwilling to do so. In either of those two cases unblocking you would clearly not benefit the project at all, so I am declining your so-called "unblock request". Furthermore, your "unblock requests" did not give anything that could possibly be expected to lead to an unblock, but merely give more of your many attempts to show us all how superior you are to the rest of us, and how we all deserve your utter contempt. (When you are blocked for, in part, personal attacks, making an unblock request in which you make further personal attacks is really not likely to succeed. If you realised that then you are trolling, and if you didn't then what does that tell us about your ability to understand how to work in a collaborative project?) Consequently, it is clear that allowing you to post what you call "unblock requests" achieves nothing but a waste of time, your talk page access will be removed, to prevent further similar waste of time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2015 (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.