Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Weyes2a

I am unhappy someone has removed my comments, imputing them to an allegedly banned Marmot, SqueakBox 20:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * User:MARMOT and sockpuppets have been banned for trolling, and your response to him doesn't make sense without his comment. --Carnildo 20:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well it has been replaced now. Telling Marmot to desist, etc, would have made perfect sense even without his comments. Can someone reformat so it appears we have 16 not 17 opposing votes; I tried unsucessfully but am not very good at formatting SqueakBox
 * Nice one James. At least now the anon cannot make his or her point so easily, SqueakBox 16:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Your ideas
I am not banned, one of my accounts was blocked by Taxman because I 'insulted' him. Blocked users may still vote, it is banned users who are not allowed to.

How can a blocked user vote while blocked? SqueakBox 15:44, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * All I am trying to do is cast my vote, which is my right, as no one has prohibited me. If a Beurocrat chooses to disqualify my vote, I will not complain, however this is blatant rabble rousing by Linuxcunt.

Well, seeing that you are actually banned, not blocked... please see the image to your right. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, fail. Was that your idea of humour? because it was VERY poor.  Try again Linuxloser.  Your unoriginality is starting to get the better of me (yawn).
 * In Soviet Russia, humor fails YOU! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Utter and absolute proof that some people have too much time on their hands. Guettarda 18:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You must be new here. --cesarb 19:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)