User talk:Cremepuff222

Yawn

I am going to bed, wikipedia. I will be awake later if you have any questions. :) Also, great show! --cremepuff222 (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it appears I am blocked? Anti-climatic ending. :( --cremepuff222 (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because that's enough, Cremepuff222. As you say here, you're now here to screw around. We don't have time for these childish games, as you well know. Your previous indef block was lifted when you promised to behave yourself. You've barely last a week before you slipped into behaving like a fool again.

In order to prevent further disruption and the waste of further time, I have restored the indef block. Time for you to take a break. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break taken

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Cremepuff222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for a week now and I think I am sufficiently stable enough to resume editing. Input from everyone is appreciated.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have been blocked for a week now and I think I am sufficiently stable enough to resume editing. Input from everyone is appreciated. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been blocked for a week now and I think I am sufficiently stable enough to resume editing. Input from everyone is appreciated. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been blocked for a week now and I think I am sufficiently stable enough to resume editing. Input from everyone is appreciated. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

--cremepuff222 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not even going to bother with an apology and explanation? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wasted time. I'm not really sure there is an explanation... I just found it funny how big of a deal it was to others that I posted silly messages like "Do you like apples?" --cremepuff222 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not much to address the issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked to prevent waste of time, and I will not be wasting any more time. Are there other issues to address? --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be engaging in any more disruptive editing sprees, I promise. I know I broke my promise before, but basically I'm just asking for another chance. And if I can't prove that I'm here to benefit the project, then the block should be reinstated. I don't see the harm in giving me just one more chance. --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]