Fredrick day
Fredrick day (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
reading AN I notice that advocating the statutory rape of children 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 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. --Fredrick day 02:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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. — Sandstein 05:55, 1 August 2008 (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.
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 right in! I find the disparity hilarious.
A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
editPlease be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) 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 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 the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
edit
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)