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 edit
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 edit
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Binarypascal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hadrian89 stated that my account was vandalism-only. However, my edits at retinitis pigmentosa and Talk:Tony Hinkle, among others, show that I have made many constructive edits. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy requires having a neutral point of view. This prohibits, among other things, promoting a specific religion (or lack thereof) over all other belief systems. However, the page evolution is clearly endorsing atheism.
Even if you consider my edits disruptive, a permablock isn't allowed for a first-time offense. Therefore, I must be given a shorter block. This would require unblocking me, and after unblocking me, re-blocking me for a shorter time would constitute double jeapordy, which is forbidden by the United States Constitution.
For these reasons, my block is unjustified and must be undone.
Decline reason:
Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. —Travistalk 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
Binarypascal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that what I did was wrong and I will only make constructive edits in the future if I am unblocked.
Decline reason:
Not convinced. What did you do that was wrong? What did you do that was unconstructive? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
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. —Travistalk 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)
- 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. —Travistalk 18:36, 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)
Binarypascal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
A permablock isn't allowed for a first-time offence.
Decline reason:
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.