User talk:86.150.254.243: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:21, 20 October 2012

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Dijon. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (86.150.254.243) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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).

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

Request reason:

You bezonian,this entry qualifies gremially as emending the quality of the work to kalokagathic state by a eumoirous mention in an encyclopaedia?Epigamically,that must merit an entry to amend the quality of the text to a numinous state,and indeed fleshing out the quality of the textual studies of grapholagnia within.Roinous and vecordious withdrawals of this entry only add to the eldritch nature and ludrification within-and therefore retention of this would enhance it to a dapatical if not diamantiferous contribution

Decline reason:

No. — Coren ^(talk) 01:48, 20 October 2012 (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 am looking for help!
Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse.
Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Wikipedia's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Wikipedia-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry.
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

{{unblock|reason=Reason given is supererogative in paltriness-purely 'No' with no quantification and demonstrating lack of noesis.Whilom a disparition of prohibition would have been justifiable,xenogeny of zeitgeist insists on a pertinent reason being demonstrated without zelotipia or zoilism,ergo request a reviewal with a more substantial undergropement of the witzelsucht contained within.}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.238.9 (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 12:05, 20 October 2012 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,551,527 edits m Signing comment by 86.139.238.9 - "→‎October 2012: " ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:21, 20 October 2012 edit undo Lemon martini (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 941 edits →‎October 2012 Next edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:
	{{unblock reviewed \| 1=''You bezonian,this entry qualifies gremially as emending the quality of the work to kalokagathic state by a eumoirous mention in an encyclopaedia?Epigamically,that must merit an entry to amend the quality of the text to a numinous state,and indeed fleshing out the quality of the textual studies of grapholagnia within.Roinous and vecordious withdrawals of this entry only add to the eldritch nature and ludrification within-and therefore retention of this would enhance it to a dapatical if not diamantiferous contribution'' \| decline=No. — [[User:Coren\|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren\|(talk)]]</sup> 01:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed \| 1=''You bezonian,this entry qualifies gremially as emending the quality of the work to kalokagathic state by a eumoirous mention in an encyclopaedia?Epigamically,that must merit an entry to amend the quality of the text to a numinous state,and indeed fleshing out the quality of the textual studies of grapholagnia within.Roinous and vecordious withdrawals of this entry only add to the eldritch nature and ludrification within-and therefore retention of this would enhance it to a dapatical if not diamantiferous contribution'' \| decline=No. — [[User:Coren\|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren\|(talk)]]</sup> 01:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)}}

	{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Reason given is supererogative in paltriness-purely 'No' with no quantification and demonstrating lack of noesis.Whilom a disparition of prohibition would have been justifiable,xenogeny of zeitgeist insists on a pertinent reason being demonstrated without zelotipia or zoilism,ergo request a reviewal with a more substantial undergropement of the witzelsucht contained within.''}} <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.139.238.9\|86.139.238.9]] ([[User talk:86.139.238.9\|talk]]) 12:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		{{helpme}} {{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Reason given is supererogative in paltriness-purely 'No' with no quantification and demonstrating lack of noesis.Whilom a disparition of prohibition would have been justifiable,xenogeny of zeitgeist insists on a pertinent reason being demonstrated without zelotipia or zoilism,ergo request a reviewal with a more substantial undergropement of the witzelsucht contained within.''}} <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.139.238.9\|86.139.238.9]] ([[User talk:86.139.238.9\|talk]]) 12:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->