User talk:Henry Purcell II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to User talk:Chris 73 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Alexfusco5 12:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to User talk:Chris 73 constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Alexfusco5 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Chris 73 is a convicted paedophile, and is listed on the paedophiles register"

Decline reason: "No reason have been provided — Snowolf How can I help? 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

It IS a reason, but not necessarily a good one. As somebody can get a new username in 5 seconds, what is the point in what is laughably described as "blocking" them ? Is it just something to keep Administrators busy because they've got nothing better to do with their lives ? --Henry Purcell II (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)