User talk:LetsNotPretend

August 2009

Your recent edit to When You Look Me in the Eyes (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! (Report bot mistakes here) // VoABot II (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Pixie Lott. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - eo (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lindsay Lohan, you will be blocked from editing. Rodhull andemu 15:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Jack. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 17:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 16:52, 7 September 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is not a vandalism-only account. Yes, I have "vandalised" but I have made constructive edits and uploaded some pictures, proving that this is not a vandalism-only account. You can block me for a certain amount of time for vandalising, but don't block me indefinitely on the grounds of something that's untrue. I have made contructive edits in the past and I would like to make some in the future. If I were to make a second account to make the constructive edits I wish, that would be seen as "sockpuppetry", so what's the point in blocking me indefinitely for having a cheap laugh? There's good and bad in all of us and I may have had a bit of joke around on Wikipedia but I don't see the point in blocking me for that. I'm hardly some notorious vandaliser who's hit every single page on this website.

Decline reason:

No, we don't need users who vandalize the encyclopedia. Your request indicates that you think that some vandalism is okay, and that you are likely to vandalize again in the future, so it would not be appropriate to unblock you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 11 September 2009 (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.