WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA

HERE ARE SOME FUCKING COOKIES.

Quit making a mess of my talk page you clowns

April 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for vandalism as a result of a compromised account. So long as you do not have control of your account it will remain indefinitely blocked. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

—Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Phort99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Indefinite block? That's a little extreme, isn't it?

Template:Too many references
Why did you try to delete this? Personal vendetta? You need only glance at the text to see that it is not "pure vandalism." It sat there happily for four months.

Anyway, my account has not been compromised. Not sure how I'm supposed to prove that.

As for Gayboner, that seems like something that someone who is looking for "Homo erectus" might search for, don't you think?

Decline reason:

No, I don't think so at all. Since you seem to be confused about the difference between serious editing and just playing around, I don't think an unblock would be wise. Kuru (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Oh no, I know the difference quite well. Often I do manage to confuse other editors about the difference, though. Phort99 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Phort99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I offer, in exchange, sexual favors. Phort99 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account is definitely compromised, and I am revoking email access and talk page access. Phort99, should you read this, use your personal email to contact an admin you know and trust. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Too many references

Template:Too many references has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]