User talk:Heliac

This is a Wikipedia user talk page, not an encyclopedic article.

You can leave me a message here.

Wikimedia Foundation

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Heliac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocked without any prior warning.--Heliac (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been warned and asked nicely countless times to stop reverting indiscriminantly and you haven't listened. This is the only way to stop you. Please be a lot more careful when you come back. — Grand master ka 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Check the archives. They consist entirely of prior warnings. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?????

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)[reply]

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. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]