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).

Nous sommes des amis avec IPH95 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

@Fluffernutter, Gogo Dodo: I WILL CONTINUE TO CREATE SOCKS!!! Hahaha! And I WILL continue to harass people. Nous sommes des amis avec IPH95 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

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.

Agahghahhajwyhaheheyhahejeyeuk

edit

@Gogo Dodo and Fluffernutter: affbaangwhheafnagdYsuarueisettskteikregnadh . Nous sommes des amis avec IPH95 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

 
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Olaf Davis (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply