User talk:Who ordered 137?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent Who ordered 137? (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Nothing here yet.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

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)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

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)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

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)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

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)

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

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)