User talk:Michael Alberts

User talk? I am talking!!!

December 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Woodhouse's toad has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * 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: Woodhouse's toad was changed by Michael Alberts (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.965082 on 2014-12-05T21:42:54+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Global Peace Index. 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 on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Global Peace Index was changed by Michael Alberts (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.965286 on 2014-12-05T21:43:06+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi robot editor! Are you really a robot? Anyways, I was just reminding people that "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Good luck! Michael Alberts

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Irreplaceable. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- Orduin  ⋠ T ⋡ 21:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Irreplaceable. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. – Gilliam (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

About block
The warning is displayed at the bottom of the editing page above the "save edit" button. The warning is on all pages. Your adding it is irrelevant, and, quite frankly, disruptive to other editors. -- Orduin  ⋠ T ⋡ 21:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanations. I am actually an experienced editor with thousands of edits (but of course I won't identify myself), and I wanted to test how a confused, new user might be treated and how he/she may feel like. So I created a few socks that made misguided edits. (I make sure they don't stay for more than 5 minutes if not reverted by someone else.) The result? It seems like while some users (like you) try to explain the situation, most of the time the misguided user would be driven away from the project without understanding why they were blocked. These users could have been valuable resources once they learn about the rules! Perhaps it would be better if there were more precise explanations to tell a user what exactly is wrong. Anyways, don't bother to checkuser me. This is on a public computer. Just (ask an admin to) block this account indef per WP:DUCK. Happy editing, and I hope we may cross paths in the future under my actual account. Michael Alberts (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I must say this is definitely a first, and it is good to hear I'm doing right! Also, what you do can help. It makes sure that while users may revert vandalism, they must also understand why it is vandalism, and should be removed. -- Orduin  ⋠ T ⋡ 22:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)