User talk:MatthewHoffman: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:50, 26 September 2007 editMatthewHoffman (talk \| contribs)25 edits →Block ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:20, 28 September 2007 edit undoChaser (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,934 edits →Block: unblock request declinedNext edit →
Line 83:		Line 83:
	:After discussion, this has been extended to an indefinite block. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)		:After discussion, this has been extended to an indefinite block. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

	{{unblock\|1=This was totally unjustified. I never once promoted my point of view, and instead objected to others promoting theirs, and attacking me personally (see relevant talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Irreducible_complexity&oldid=159657503 under "Serious Violation of NPOV" which was also archived by Adam Cuerden.). Also, I am being accused of being a "sock" (I assume that means "sock puppet") because I bothered to read Misplaced Pages policies when making my objections and because I can see that there is an "edit summary" blank that tells you to describe changes you have made, and I used that. I am here under my real name! I am no "sock" and I am willing to prove it.}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=This was totally unjustified. I never once promoted my point of view, and instead objected to others promoting theirs, and attacking me personally (see relevant talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Irreducible_complexity&oldid=159657503 under "Serious Violation of NPOV" which was also archived by Adam Cuerden.). Also, I am being accused of being a "sock" (I assume that means "sock puppet") because I bothered to read Misplaced Pages policies when making my objections and because I can see that there is an "edit summary" blank that tells you to describe changes you have made, and I used that. I am here under my real name! I am no "sock" and I am willing to prove it.\|decline=Looking at the article talk page and your contribution history, I agree with the ] that you're somebody's sock here to disrupt the project.— ] - ] 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)}}

	==] debate==		==] debate==

Revision as of 01:20, 28 September 2007

Welcome

Welcome to Misplaced Pages , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Misplaced Pages is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username.

I hope to see you around Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

15:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please read and abide by WP:3RR. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule on Irreducible Complexity. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Please slow down and avoid administrative actions that might end up with your editing priveleges restricted. Thanks--Filll 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've given you a 24 hour block, because of WP:3RR - basically, to prevent edit warring against consensus, you're not allowed to revert changes more than 3 times in any article in any one day. Calm down, relax, and come back tomorrow =) Adam Cuerden 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, my 24-hour block was set at 22:07 yesterday, but the system now says it won't expire until after 02:00 on the 17th...why is my block being extended?

Also, I was unaware of the three revert rule until after I had done the third revert. However, I notice that, although the others reverting my changes were not responding to my legitimate reason for having done so (the source they were using was a public policy paper, not a scientific paper, and it pertained to the definitions of words used by those opposed to the policy advocated by the paper's authors). Matthew C. Hoffman 00:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're apparently not blocked. You might be getting auto-blocked, but I'll have to check it out. Just hang tight. --Haemo 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Yep — it looks like the autoblock hung around longer than it should have. You should be okay to edit now. Haemo 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Request handled by: Haemo 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Matthew C. Hoffman 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be aware of WP:3RR. Please note that it's a prohibition on edit warring, not a license to revert three times. Also, have a good look at NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and also see what WP:RS has to say about tertiary sources. ... dave souza, talk 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not...

... if you think that Intelligent Design is unfairly characterised as Creationism on Misplaced Pages, argue that point at Talk:Intelligent Design rather than edit-warring on Irreducible Complexity?

Having changed the definition in the main article, it will be easy to change the way the subject is described in all other articles. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for 72 hours, due to your extreme rudeness, POV-pushing, and failure to assume good faith on Talk:Irreducible complexity. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Adam Cuerden 17:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

After discussion, this has been extended to an indefinite block. Adam Cuerden 21:31, 22 September 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was totally unjustified. I never once promoted my point of view, and instead objected to others promoting theirs, and attacking me personally (see relevant talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Irreducible_complexity&oldid=159657503 under "Serious Violation of NPOV" which was also archived by Adam Cuerden.). Also, I am being accused of being a "sock" (I assume that means "sock puppet") because I bothered to read Misplaced Pages policies when making my objections and because I can see that there is an "edit summary" blank that tells you to describe changes you have made, and I used that. I am here under my real name! I am no "sock" and I am willing to prove it.

Decline reason:

Looking at the article talk page and your contribution history, I agree with the consensus here that you're somebody's sock here to disrupt the project.— Chaser - T 01:20, 28 September 2007 (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.

Irreducible Complexity debate

Thought you might want to weigh in at Talk:Irreducible_complexity#Intelligent_design_creationism.Tstrobaugh 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)