User talk:Binarypascal

The recent edit you made to Evolution was unconstructive and has been reverted. Please refrain from such edits in future. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making unconstructive edits to Evolution. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your message on my talk page
BP's message: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Binarypascal (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, very funny BP. I'm sure we both know with whom the admins will side here. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

BP's reply: Even if you want to revert the redirect, you can't revert my typo-fixes as well, because reverting all of an edit because part of it is unsatisfactory is gaming the system, which is forbidden. --Binarypascal (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny and clever. On the other hand, putting in edits you know to be unconstructive along with smaller good edits is also gaming the system. Question of priorities: it is more important that users not be redirected to Evil than there are small problems with internal links. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Whilst the question of blocking is obviously up to administrators, might I suggest you look at Theistic evolution and then review your opinion that the page Evolution endorses atheism. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As a comment, in the edit summary of this edit you described your previous edits as "vandalism". Therefore you knew at this point exactly what you were doing and that it was wrong. However, you continued to vandalise the page. Saying now that you've decided that your edits were wrong and that you won't do this again is therefore not a very convincing position. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew that that part of my edit was vandalism, but it is gaming the system to remove constructive contributions (my typo fixes) because another part of the edit is unsatisfactory. If the redirect at the top had simply been removed, rather than reverting the spelling fixes as well, I would have had no problem with it. --Binarypascal (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should stop accusing other users of bad faith edits when you were the one doing the vandalizing. It matters not a whit that all your edits were reverted, you are the one trying to twist the rules. — Travis talk  18:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While I think the other editors who have posted here have characterised your behaviour very well, I thought I might point out that your claims were not even in line with the letter of the law. WP:GAME, example 10, to which you refer, prohibits using errors in a revision as an excuse to remove constructive contributions. In your case, they were not errors but vandalism, and my aim was not to remove the constructive contributions - they were merely collateral damage. Hadrian89 (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)