User talk:Midas56

April 2013
Hello, I'm Widefox. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Macrophilia because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widefox ; talk 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Macrophilia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism not constructive 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: Macrophilia was changed by Midas56 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.911442 on 2013-04-30T23:25:43+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Your recent editing history at Macrophilia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Widefox ; talk 00:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! all Widefox ; talk 00:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. All your edits have been reverted apart from your first one, what's going on? Widefox ; talk 00:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Understand Widefox that what I was doing was not vandalism. I was simply adjusting the page to be more accurate. You see I am an actual member of the macrophile community andfound the article to very inaccurate in certain areas. My main issue was the use of the term giant in the article. Since macrophilia as a whole focuses on giantess which are female giants the use of the term giant which implies male is very inaccurate and personally as a member of that community offensive which is why I changed it.


 * You will have to forgive the initial categorisation by me and the automated robot as vandalism. If you see above I recognised it is not vandalism at the time and changed to disruptive and edit warring upon further inspection. The content dispute is best taken up at the talk page of the article. Please read the above first (sorry there is so many links). Regards Widefox ; talk 10:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Vorarephilia 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: Vorarephilia was changed by Midas56 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.879432 on 2013-05-03T15:20:15+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Macrophilia 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: Macrophilia was changed by Midas56 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.924229 on 2013-06-10T14:31:12+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

July 31
Sorry for thanking you. Stop making the Macrophilia page one sided. Attraction to male giants exists.Sage94 (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Warning
You are edit warring on the Macrophilia page, and run a risk of attracting a block. While the point of dispute is trivial (and not worth risking a block for) in my personal opinion you are incorrect in your assertion, in that the phrase can be said to relate to either sex. Although, I concede, not in an equal measure. If you feel an ongoing urge to discuss your position, please do it on the article talk page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
You have once again reverted edits on the macrophilia page and continue to make the page biased. I have consulted you to explain on the Macrophilia talk page or my talk page, and you've been warned by an admin. It doesn't matter if a majority of macrophiliacs are heterosexual men (which isn't proven by the way), and articles have to be based on facts, not opinions. Are you going to comment back, or are you going to ignore me and push until you're blocked?--Sage94 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Midas, you can consider this your last warning. If you continue to edit war at the Macrophilia page, you will be blocked. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)