Macrocosmic microcosm

December 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Lucky ace. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Zorzos

Why are you making minor edits to Zorzos when it is going to be deleted for copyright? Eeekster (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought people vote to keep articles, so if I fix it, it might be kept.--Macrocosmic microcosm (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a vote when copyright is involved. Eeekster (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please slow down!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 09:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I do that because sometimes I make a lot of big changes and then the connection is lost before I could save it, so it was a waste of time. But if I lose the connection before I save a small change, it isn't as bad.--Macrocosmic microcosm (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're having connection problems when making large edits, you may want to copy-and-paste the section or article that you're editing into a text file, make the changes you want to make, then refresh Wikipedia, copy-and-paste the edited text into the edit window, preview, then save. Saving after every single little change means you are clogging up the recent changes list, which makes it hard to patrol for vandalism. Thanks! --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 09:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making so many small edits. This type of editing could be considered disruptive for the reasons I described above. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 10:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop this

Please stop making edits such as "fixing" <br /> codes - this is useless. I'll have to block for disruptive editing if you continue because you're merely clogged Special:RecentChanges. Ta'.  GARDEN  11:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop producing dozens of minuscule edits, as they are regarded as disruptive! Materialscientist (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be done this way, the article is bad, I have to fix it. Almost done with it.--Macrocosmic microcosm (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was just fixing articles, nobody cares about that recent changes thing because it changes all the time.-Macrocosmic microcosm (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The fixes were useless, as you were told, and the volume of edits was way too large to allow it to continue to flood RecentChanges.  GARDEN  11:51, 19 December 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It was not useless, I was fixing the article. It shouldn't matter how many times a page is edited as long as it makes it look better.--Macrocosmic microcosm (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is usually correct, but in instances where someone is making loads of edits in a short time to one article it becomes disruptive because it makes vandalism elsewhere that much more difficult to detect. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 12:15, 19 December 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.

Okay, I didn't believe them when they said it was disruptive because that recent changes thing doesn't make any sense and I did it a lot before before I made an account and nobody ever said anything about it, but if I could edit again I will copy the text ctrl + c in case the connection loses instead of making a bunch of smaller changes.--Macrocosmic microcosm (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)