User talk:Henry Purcell II

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)[reply]

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))[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).

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

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)[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.

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)[reply]