User talk:Helpsortabout

June 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Josephus on Jesus with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Annals (Tacitus). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Josephus on Jesus with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Josephus on Jesus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--John (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I noticed on how your first edit you referred to another editor as a "mental defective" based on, so far as I can tell, your perception of his religious beliefs. And yet it seems to be you, who have been so far as I can tell a single purpose editor who has used several sockpuppets in clear violation of policy, who have been blocked repeatedly for the same sort of behavior regarding the same subject. That sort of conduct is, so far as I can tell, virtually the definition of at least one form of mental defect. Has it ever occurred to you to analyze your own behavior at all, let alone as insultingly as you insist on viewing others? John Carter (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having reviewed some of your rather blindingly stupid and pointlessly disruptive edits, I think that the phrase that might make more sense is "Get rid of COI editors who cannot abide by even basic policies of civility," and, under the circumstances, that "suggestion" at least seems to be one that we not only can, but do, follow. I realize that there is almost certainly an issue of pure ego and self-promotion regarding your edits, but, before you reappear for another round of your vandalism, it might be a good idea to ensure that what you intend to do is permitted here. Such truly stupid edits are a pretty sure sign that the edits are being conducted by a rather dim-witted person who has realized policy and guidelines do not support his favored opinions. Although we actually try to not truly "get rid" of such articles in general, when their conduct is as egregious and unthinking of that you have most recently displayed, it is hard not realizing it is the same person back again. A little common sense would tell someone that. You do have some, right? John Carter (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]