| Revision as of 21:05, 26 October 2006 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →Blocking← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:10, 26 October 2006 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,011 edits →Regarding reversions made on [] [] to []: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.</div> | You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.</div> | ||
| <!-- Template:3RR5 --> The duration of the is 24 hours. ] 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)</div> | <!-- Template:3RR5 --> The duration of the is 24 hours. ] 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)</div> | ||
| Re your mail... quality of edits is not the question, please read ] carefully (and hopefully ] too). Now, if you're new and didn't really appreciate this, and are prepared to prmoise to be good in future, you can be unblocked (though I'm just off to bed so maybe someone else will...) ] 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocking == | == Blocking == | ||
Revision as of 22:10, 26 October 2006
Richard Dawkins
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
Reasonable explanation for reverting your edits to Richard Dawkins
The detail you added on Betrand Russell, Huxley and Haekel is unsourced and this, along with the other detail you have added are riddled with POV and weasel words and are generally unencyclopedic in style all of which are against wiki policy and/or guidelines and I do not consider them an improvement. This article is very well sourced and well written so such additions are, more than likely, going to be reverted, if not by me, then by someone else.--KaptKos 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
a. Nothing in the first para is sourced. And I cannot see what is controversial about the assertions I make. If anything I am too kind to Dawkins in comparing him to Haeckel who was a first-rate scientist.
b. if there is PoV or Weasel Words then please amend them.
c. And why delete the references to Bob May and Dennis Noble (both truly world-class scientists)?
NBeale 19:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Four separate editors have reverted you. You've gone way beyond the 3RR. World class scientists can be mentioned in their own articles in a neutral way. *Sparkhead 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions made on October 26 2006 to Richard Dawkins
Re your mail... quality of edits is not the question, please read WP:3RR carefully (and hopefully WP:1RR too). Now, if you're new and didn't really appreciate this, and are prepared to prmoise to be good in future, you can be unblocked (though I'm just off to bed so maybe someone else will...) William M. Connolley 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Blocking
I am not going to get involved in determining the quality of your edits or their relevence to the article in question, but there does seem to be an issue with WP:BITE in which User:Sparkhead seems to not have recognized that you are a newer contributor who isn't aware of our policies here about the number of reverts. Feel free to post the {{unblock}} tag here and an administrator will review the situation and maybe unblock you...this is not something I am almost never willing to do since I do not agree with overturning another administrators decisions.--MONGO 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)