User talk:Heliac

THERE ARE ONLY 7 PLANETS.... I don't count mars or pluto


 * If you want to see old posts on my talk:  Please visit my archives

Check the archives. They consist entirely of prior warnings.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

?????
I'm confused -- in the article Mess you reverted me twice, called me a vandal, gave me an Unconstructive Edits thingy on my Talk Page and then reverted yourself so the article was the same as the way I left it. What just happened? 24.36.35.188 (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
You are disrupting Wikipedia and removing warnings when people point it out to you. After seeing that you have been warned repeatedly for very similar things and you have removed all the warnings, I've blocked you for 24 hours.

To be able to continue editing Wikipedia, you need to start responding to other users in good faith.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

trigger happy
I realize that vandalism is a huge problem on Wikipedia and that vandalism patrol is a vital activity. (I do a certain amount of it myself.) HOWEVER, let me remind you that you are required to assume good faith. If in your haste to revert vandalism you are clicking that Twinkle button so rapidly that you're accidentally reverting non-vandalism, too, you are -- in some measure -- creating the same sort of problem that the vandals do.

Your message at User talk:Scsbot stopped the archiving bot -- well-designed bots all do this. Now I have to go back and figure out which of the bot's edits went through and which didn't, and where I have to restart it so that it can complete its work for tonight properly. That's a nuisance -- and I wouldn't mind so much, except that your harsh comments at WT:RD suggest that you're rather unclear on how some things work, indicating that extra caution is indicated before you set about using automated tools to unthinkingly revert large amounts of "vandalism". Please be more careful. Thank you. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

please be much more careful
I've just spent quite a bit of time reviewing your recent edits (i.e. your Twinkle-based reversions) and I've had to undo several of them. (See my edit history if you're curious.) When you come back, you need to be much, much more careful when reverting people's edits. Just because an edit was made by an anon IP does not necessarily mean it's vandalism. By reverting, you've reinserted redlinks, wrong links, and double redirects, and removed information that was added in good faith. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Automated tools
When you come back, I suggest that you should not try to use automated tools such as TWINKLE to edit Wikipedia. You need to take responsibility for every edit you make. Considering the way you abused TWINKLE, I've protected your monobook.js so you can't add it again; let me know, of course, if you need to make other changes to your JavaScript.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to your false accusations of vandalism
Please see my rebuttal to your false accusations of vandalism. 159.83.4.148 (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)