Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi

ATTENTION! I AM A DUAL-DEGREE LAW AND BUSINESS STUDENT AND WILL BE STUDYING FOR FINALS UNTIL OCTOBER 15TH. UNTIL THEN, I CANNOT DEAL WITH WIKIPEDIA ISSUES MUCH. ANY COMPLAINTS FROM A CERTAIN UNGULATE ABOUT MUCH OF ANYTHING SHOULD BE IGNORED. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Personnel Administrator MA v. Feeney

On 12 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Personnel Administrator MA v. Feeney, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Appologies

The text of the ref cite you were adding jumped out at me more then the actual visible text. My bad. Should have backed off.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI I left a message on gwen gales talk page. Not sure if my reversion tipped the balance but i did what i thought was right.

blocked

Edit warring isn't allowed because it harms articles and the project. Please discuss disagreements on article talk pages instead. I have blocked you 24 hours for straying from the three revert rule at Sarah Palin. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3rr, edit warring at Sarah Palin. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

REASON: The people in support of the TIME article outnumber those who oppose. The consensus is there, but the people against the TIME article were reverting me. I also reverted myself. Please unban me. Read the talk page. I also feel that Gwen Gale's block against me is politically motivated, as her edits to Michelle Malkin and Sarah Palin reveal she is a conservative. If you read my talk page, you'll even see the retraction of protest from Cube lurker, a person who was against the TIME article. And this revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=244857072 was against a person on my "side" of the dispute who I was trying to get back onto the talk page to refine what we were going to say.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)