My pleasure. :-) I'm very into the Law of One. What about you? -- 173.128.70.223 ( talk) 05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Law of One is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 01:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You haven't the slightest idea about what sort of editor Drmies is. If you want to leave Wikipedia, fine. If all you are going to do is vent your emotions, then you certainly don't belong here. Luckily Drmies is tough - but why should anyone have to put up with your venting? Dougweller ( talk) 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The following was selectively deleted by Drmies
Are you fing kidding me? There are 30+ reliable sources listed in the pre-vandalism history of the page. This debate in this talk page has no importance and will not receive justice. I am making my objections public for the sake of posterity alone. If you want to see the sources:
This debate has already been done and it's very visible in the history of the page and the previous AfDs; the history which has not been consulted by the current deleters attacking this page. Without an "admin in my pocket" my claims fall on deaf ears; I understand this all too well. If you or your allies were interested in due process, you would examine the history instead of asking that all that labour be repeated. Your kind will always demand that others do all the work even when it has been done in exhaustive detail. When you've read this entire page: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One then you may speak without embarassing yourself. Anyone who has not read that entire page and understood the poles of the debate speaks from ignorance and exposes themselves as lazy deleters happy to erase hours and hours of work without a care. Shame on all of you for your intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and irresponsible deleter reflexes. Yossarianpedia ( talk) 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Drmies :@ Drmies: and his ally User:Dougweller :@ Dougweller: continue to abuse their admin privileges, attemtping to delete and erase all criticisms of their gross incompetence. Yossarianpedia ( talk) 22:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossarianpedia ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Acroterion
(talk)
00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Yossarianpedia ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have participated in a deletion debate on the appropriate deletion page. I have requested and warned unwelcome editors from touching my talk page, as is commonly done by admins who set the example for behaviour on this website. In a court of law, the accusation toward a person includes a citation of the law or regulation or bylaw that has been broken. Where is this citation? What rule have I broken? Cite the rule, or expose yourself as a petty capricious tyrant. I reject this blocking as my offense has not even been listed; it is impossible for me to change my conduct when my offense is unknown. The admin behaviour here is a joke. Yossarianpedia ( talk) 03:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. (1) Did you edit disruptively? Yes, to a very great extent. (2) Did you make personal attacks? Yes. (3) Does your unblock request indicate a recognition of what you did wrong? No. (4) Does your unblock request indicate that you are unlikely to do the same things again? On the contrary, even in the unblock request itself you make further personal attacks. Case closed. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:29, 14 June 2014 (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.
A word of advice. If you make another unblock request, stick to the subject, and don't attack others, because further personal attacks are likely to lead to loss of talk page access and/or lengthening of the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure. :-) I'm very into the Law of One. What about you? -- 173.128.70.223 ( talk) 05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Law of One is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 01:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You haven't the slightest idea about what sort of editor Drmies is. If you want to leave Wikipedia, fine. If all you are going to do is vent your emotions, then you certainly don't belong here. Luckily Drmies is tough - but why should anyone have to put up with your venting? Dougweller ( talk) 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The following was selectively deleted by Drmies
Are you fing kidding me? There are 30+ reliable sources listed in the pre-vandalism history of the page. This debate in this talk page has no importance and will not receive justice. I am making my objections public for the sake of posterity alone. If you want to see the sources:
This debate has already been done and it's very visible in the history of the page and the previous AfDs; the history which has not been consulted by the current deleters attacking this page. Without an "admin in my pocket" my claims fall on deaf ears; I understand this all too well. If you or your allies were interested in due process, you would examine the history instead of asking that all that labour be repeated. Your kind will always demand that others do all the work even when it has been done in exhaustive detail. When you've read this entire page: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One then you may speak without embarassing yourself. Anyone who has not read that entire page and understood the poles of the debate speaks from ignorance and exposes themselves as lazy deleters happy to erase hours and hours of work without a care. Shame on all of you for your intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and irresponsible deleter reflexes. Yossarianpedia ( talk) 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Drmies :@ Drmies: and his ally User:Dougweller :@ Dougweller: continue to abuse their admin privileges, attemtping to delete and erase all criticisms of their gross incompetence. Yossarianpedia ( talk) 22:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossarianpedia ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Acroterion
(talk)
00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Yossarianpedia ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have participated in a deletion debate on the appropriate deletion page. I have requested and warned unwelcome editors from touching my talk page, as is commonly done by admins who set the example for behaviour on this website. In a court of law, the accusation toward a person includes a citation of the law or regulation or bylaw that has been broken. Where is this citation? What rule have I broken? Cite the rule, or expose yourself as a petty capricious tyrant. I reject this blocking as my offense has not even been listed; it is impossible for me to change my conduct when my offense is unknown. The admin behaviour here is a joke. Yossarianpedia ( talk) 03:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. (1) Did you edit disruptively? Yes, to a very great extent. (2) Did you make personal attacks? Yes. (3) Does your unblock request indicate a recognition of what you did wrong? No. (4) Does your unblock request indicate that you are unlikely to do the same things again? On the contrary, even in the unblock request itself you make further personal attacks. Case closed. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:29, 14 June 2014 (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.
A word of advice. If you make another unblock request, stick to the subject, and don't attack others, because further personal attacks are likely to lead to loss of talk page access and/or lengthening of the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)