User talk:Vanda0101

March 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Middlesbrough F.C. because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Charlton Athletic F.C.. 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 NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Charlton Athletic F.C. was changed by Vanda0101 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.916448 on 2013-03-31T03:06:34+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Charlton Athletic F.C. with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Arctic Kangaroo 03:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Charlton Athletic F.C.. Arctic Kangaroo 03:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

future[edit]

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).

Vanda0101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thats ok I will just make a new account soon. Thanks for your concern Vanda0101 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obviously never meant to be taken seriously. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2013 (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.

And please refrain from deleting things from my page, thanks.

Coming from a vandal, that's pretty rich. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new account[edit]

New account will be called Vanda0102. See you all soon

Thanks for letting us know. I'll revoke your talk page access here for good measure. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]