User talk:SnorksIII

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Spider fighting. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Spider fighting has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. There is no possibility that you thought "correcting typos" was an accurate summary. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Materialscientist (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was going to make some lame argument that the "Vandalism-only account" tag wasn't fair since some of my edits weren't vandalism, but then I looked at my contributions list and realized I didn't actually make any constructive edits with this particular account. Anyways, that's only six edits in nine months, is that really that big of a deal? All I did was revert a vandalism-revert that happened two minutes after I randomly stumbled across a page vandalized a moment earlier. Oviously my revert-revert was going to be caught immediately by the original reverter and not left to be viewed long by the public. I mean, it's not like I can vandalize Conservapedia. Trust me, I'd spend every waking moment editing them in bad faith if it were an option for me. I've excersized restrain here, I think. SnorksIII (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're right, you have no useful contributions with this account. Might as well let it go. As for your comment, "I mean, it's not like I can vandalize Conservapedia. Trust me, I'd spend every waking moment editing them in bad faith if it were an option for me.": with that attitude, I won't be unblocking you, so it's not an option for you here either. Also, I'm not sure what this was, but it doesn't work. Kinu ^t/_c 11:59, 30 January 2011 (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.

Seeing as how you tried again, I've had to protect your talk page. --Kinu ^t/_c 12:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]