User talk:Endlessdan/archive 6.3
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Endlessdan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Playin' solitare till dawn with a deck of fifty one
Archives·1: Snitches Get Stiches
·2 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6.1 ·Prologue ·6.2: The Shrew ·6.3: The Cool Hand ·6.4: The Bootlicker ·7 ·8 ·9 ·X: Kelly, baby ·11.1: Juicy ·11.2 ·12 ·12: Cocksuckers
|
re: Eli ManningI will do the citeweb thing asap, right now I have to go to work; hopefully I will be able to work on it later this evening. Cheers. J.delanoygabsadds 19:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
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).
Endlessdan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Good reasoning. 'Being a dick for doing the same thing' What exactly did I do, John Reaves? The first revert was bogus. I named my page the 'Doucheblog' a long time ago. It includes copying people's funny quotes and random essays. But this ego-maniac thinks I am being slanderous to him. I doubt running my mouth is going to get me unblocked, my hope is some out there can look at this situation objectively. And I still want my page to be titled to 'Doucheblog' without John Reaves catching hard feelings. Decline reason: Just stop that blog nonsense. WP:NOT#BLOG, and WP:NOT for posting weird stuff inquiring about the mothers of others. — Sandstein (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 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.
You're invited to the
You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC) same person?I am shocked to see your name as among the blocked! Weren't you running for ArbCom? I have to log off but I will return to see what is going on. Archtransit (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor (not me) has nominated User:Endlessdan/pizza for deletion. I'm not sure what's going on, and I suggested that MFD is not the best way to deal with this situation. I was trying to figure out what's going on and I noticed that you appear not to have even been notified, nor was the subpage tagged. Just wanted to notify you. --JayHenry (t) 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Block extendedFor making egregious personal attacks here, I have blocked you for 48 hours. Please be advised that such conduct is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Sandstein (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two thousand, three hundred and twenty-two blocks in my walls.
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).
Endlessdan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I promise to be nice. Isn't there a work-release program? Decline reason: Work release program details below.— Addhoc (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 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:
If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Addhoc (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Please fix this article. Just look at the formatting. --EndlessDan 17:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Also a user is adding weird stuff to Labradoodle. He added a link to a hacker website under the guise of labradoodle pics.--EndlessDan 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete this nonsense.--EndlessDan 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
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).
Endlessdan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Why not? Decline reason: 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.
|