User talk:86.29.141.64

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry for that bit of vandalism in teh sandbox. Someone on ED asked me to get a wikitable for that picture of teh girl with sausages up her ass, but when I went to do it on ED it wouldn't let me 'cause it's over 200KB, so I had to do it on Wikipedia. I did it in teh sandbox, 'cause that's where you're meant to test shit like this. I won't do it again now, 'cause I've given him teh link of the revision and taken a screenshot. I'd quite like to continue helping out at teh Did you know bit. 86.29.141.64 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

And at the same time you scream "Long live Grawp and Hagger"? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:33, 29 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I've removed it now and I never "screamed" it. Although I don't see why I should. It's just the same as someone saying "This user supports the war on terror". Oh, how one sided Wikipedia can be. 86.29.141.64 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblocking provided. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:44, 29 July 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.

{{helpme}}What does he mean by "No grounds for unblocking provided."

Please see the Guide to appealing blocks. –xeno (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you register an account (here if you are still blocked). The block may have been a little long, so a reduction to 12 hours may be in order. BJ^Talk 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to stay anonymous, but I want to be able to edit. In order to do so I need to be unblocked. 86.29.141.64 (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for vandalism. I apologise for this and promise not to do it again. If unblocked, I'm not going to continue vandalising. Instead, I will help people out at Did you know and do other constructive contributions to Wikipedia. The blocking policy states that blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent future problems. Because I've promised not to cause any more problems, my block no longer serves a purpose allowed by the blocking policy. Therefore, I request to be unblocked. 86.29.141.64 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. –xeno (talk) 15:07, 29 July 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 request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. –xeno (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good method of being unblocked. By the way, the second to last bullet point "When are you are done with your work" should be "When you are done with your work". 86.29.141.64 (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good start indeed. I'll correct that forthwith.

Done re-substed corrected version. –xeno (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section on history to the article. But I have a concern over another editor's actions. When Adolphus79 said "he can rot in a hole...", was he refering to me? 86.29.141.64 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know - you'd have to ask him. I'll have a look at this improvement after I get back from lunch, in about an hour. Feel free to continue to work on it, and ensure that it is sufficient paraphrased so as to not constitute copyright violation. –xeno (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did he undo my edit here? What I wrote is correct and the only reason he gave was "undo Grawp comment". I don't see what it's got to with Grawp. 86.29.141.64 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the few admins involved know Grawp's signature, many confuse any reference to Grawp/Hagger in edits to be Grawp himself. BJ^Talk 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. BJ^Talk 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I reverted Adolpuhs. 86.29.141.64 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

I hope you enjoy contributing constructively to the encyclopedia. Feel free to let me know if you need any further assistance. –xeno (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page gonna stay like this for ever? I have a dynamic IP, so I will be editing under a different IP tomorrow. Whoever gets this IP next will have all of this stuff on their talk page. 86.29.141.64 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can blank it off if you want. I've taken off the article stuff, since it's now immortalized in the article. –xeno (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.