User talk:Who ordered 137?

Nothing here yet.

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).

Who ordered 137? (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Man, I was just messing around, I'm not grawp or anybody.

Decline reason:

I recall blocking one of your older accounts for similar malicious moves. Looks like you're done messing around for awhile— OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:18, 9 May 2008 (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.

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).

Who ordered 137? (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why the hell is my e-mail blocked? That's absurd; I've never even used e-mail.

Decline reason:

That is not an unblock request. Gwernol 10:07, 10 May 2008 (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.

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).

Who ordered 137? (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK, sorry. Please unblock my e-mail then, the person that blocked it apparently thought I was grawp.

Decline reason:

Judging from your contributions, there's no reason to lift any part of your block. — Sandstein (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2008 (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.

I have asked a question for you. You better repay my kindness with good behavior. Don't embarass me by bad behavior. JerryVanF (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I haven't gotten any question from you (I checked the e-mail, too). Who ordered 137? (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, very stupid -basic- question: Why do you want us to reenable email? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email reply

This response is a duplicate of the one posted at User talk:The Mind is my country

No. Those blocks were placed by a checkuser, and with good reason. If you didn't want to be blocked, you should have considered your actions before hand. I am now restricting email access to your second account, as you freely admit it was created for the sole purpose of evading the current terms of your block, which is against policy. Wikipedia is not your personal playground, and vandalism to it is taken seriously and dealt with in the most appropriate manner. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]