User talk:Blain Nelder

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page St Clere's School has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Jimbo Wales. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: User:Jimbo Wales was changed by Blain Nelder (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2010-04-16T20:32:49+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to St Clere's School. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to St Clere's School. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCKED

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhull andemu 20:35, 16 April 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

no i wernt vandalizing he reverted all my ediyts

Decline reason:

Cool. - Vianello (Talk) 20:40, 16 April 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.

Just an observation...

You were vandalising that page so your edits were reverted in good faith (See WP:AGF). Shock Metric 20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blain Nelder for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Shock Metric 20:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]