User talk:Sad Trev

April 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ginger Lynn has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ginger Lynn was changed by Sad Trev (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.965981 on 2016-04-24T18:15:30+00:00.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Horwitz Publishing House. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Widr (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Widr (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't see why. You told me to stop vandalising and I did just that, never returned to edit after your warning. Doesn't make sense that I am blocked at this point. Sad Trev (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edits have been nothing but vandalism. Follow the instructions above if you think that the block was unjustified. Widr (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not whether the block was justified, what was the point in warning me not to vandalise, me stopping, then shortly after you blocking me when I didn't make one edit from the warning to the block. Sad Trev (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The program sent you a warning automatically, after which I checked your other contributions. In fact you were lucky that majority of your edits had slipped through the cracks until then. Widr (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Forget the "automatic warning", we are talking about you. Obviously if I was no good as you believe then you could have blocked me straight away, but you decided to warn me first. I took notice of YOU - real person not bot - and stopped there and then, only creating my Hello user page. So why did you block me after that? Sad Trev (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't block without checking contributions. I wouldn't have checked your contributions unless the program that I use hadn't detected your edit as vandalism and given you level 2 warning. If that would have been your second edit only, I wouldn't have blocked you, but as it turned out you were just waiting to get noticed and blocked. Mission accomplished. Once again, follow the instructions above if you feel that you should be unblocked, but do not carry on with this chat which will lead us nowhere. Widr (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)