108:
about considering being an editor who edits to advocate the statutory rape of children. I will seriously consider such a thing once the universe ends. If I could be appointed a pro-pedophile mentor - maybe I could be turned around and make the sorts of edits that allow for banning/unbanning on a regular basis. I cannot swear that I would not make thousands of constructive edits in many other topics areas as I have done in the past. --
18:
240:
194:
talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the
Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and
107:
gets you a second chance. While I'm only blocked for socking to make constructive edits (after a period of madness five months ago that did get me rightly block for incivility and harassment), I would like to make the following offer. I'll be happy to consider, maybe considering considering thinking
171:
Because I find it funny - I was blocked five months ago for a week of madness and this puts me beyond the pale. Even though my accounts just try to edit constructive, tried to find out what sort of conditions I'd have to adhere to and got nowhere. Advocate of statutory child rape? no problem, come
266:
254:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also
127:
You are blocked for harrassing others. It is beyond me why you think that, under these circumstances, an unblock request that attacks other users will even be read more than fleetingly. —
265:
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to
251:
233:
212:
208:
204:
164:
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.
181:
58:
195:
to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at
149:
53:
229:
247:
31:
25:
72:
30:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
255:
290:. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --
295:
196:
104:
110:
36:
276:
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
158:
287:
277:
270:
259:
291:
267:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge
211:
or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made
221:
200:
188:
130:
246:
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for
280:
template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
239:
216:
299:
223:
139:
114:
187:
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the
203:; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at
238:
16:
146:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
166:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
86:
82:
76:
67:
63:
49:
45:
41:
24:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
252:
A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge
234:
A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge
205:Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum
8:
182:Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
103:reading AN I notice that advocating the
286:This is an automatic notification by a
7:
14:
192:(formerly Rorschach inkblot test)
207:. Longer statements may be made
172:right in! I find the disparity
1:
300:01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
260:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
250:. The nominated article is
28:, who declined the request.
315:
256:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
140:05:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
115:02:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
105:statutory rape of children
273:with four tildes (~~~~).
150:guide to appealing blocks
224:14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
243:
21:
278:articles for deletion
242:
197:the article talk page
73:change block settings
20:
269:. Please be sure to
199:or leave a note at
271:sign your comments
244:
22:
215:. Best regards, –
138:
306:
163:
157:
137:
135:
128:
113:
92:
90:
79:
61:
59:deleted contribs
19:
314:
313:
309:
308:
307:
305:
304:
303:
237:
185:
169:
161:
155:
154:, then use the
143:
131:
129:
118:
109:
80:
70:
56:
39:
32:blocking policy
17:
12:
11:
5:
312:
310:
236:
232:nomination of
227:
189:Rorschach test
184:
178:
144:
125:
121:Decline reason
101:
97:Request reason
94:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
311:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
279:
274:
272:
268:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
241:
235:
231:
228:
226:
225:
222:
220:
219:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
193:
190:
183:
179:
177:
175:
168:
167:
160:
153:
151:
142:
141:
136:
134:
124:
122:
117:
116:
112:
106:
100:
98:
93:
88:
84:
78:
74:
69:
65:
60:
55:
51:
50:global blocks
47:
46:active blocks
43:
38:
33:
29:
27:
26:administrator
284:Please note:
283:
282:
275:
264:
245:
217:
201:my talk page
191:
186:
173:
170:
165:
147:
145:
132:
126:
120:
119:
111:Fredrick day
102:
96:
95:
68:creation log
37:Fredrick day
35:
23:
180:A note re:
292:Erwin85Bot
133:Sandstein
64:filter log
174:hilarious
148:read the
83:checkuser
42:block log
248:deletion
54:contribs
159:unblock
77:unblock
258:and "
152:first
296:talk
262:").
218:xeno
213:here
209:here
288:bot
230:AfD
87:log
34:).
298:)
176:.
162:}}
156:{{
123::
99::
81:•
75:•
71:•
66:•
62:•
57:•
52:•
48:•
44:•
294:(
91:)
89:)
85:(
40:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.