September 2010

edit
 

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Official Languages Act (Canada), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

 
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).

Meetshoped2 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I only got one warning.

Decline reason:

There's no policy saying disruptive editors must be warned multiple times before being blocked. Your edits were clearly vandalism, and even after your warning you made no attempt to improve your behavior. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2010 (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.

  • (edit conflict) While I wouldn't have given you an indefinite block myself, I'm not going to unblock at this time because your edit history is composed entirely of blatant vandalism and I see no indication from you that you plan to contribute constructively in future. Feel free to request unblocking again, but I strongly recommend that you think much harder about phrasing your request. Why is this block unnecessary to protect Wikipedia from further disruption? What will we gain by lifting the block? Bovlb (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply