Misplaced Pages

User talk:MatthewHoffman: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:07, 15 September 2007 editVanished user (talk | contribs)15,602 edits →3RR warning← Previous edit Revision as of 00:16, 17 September 2007 edit undoMatthewHoffman (talk | contribs)25 edits →3RR warningNext edit →
Line 49: Line 49:


I've given you a 24 hour block, because of ] - 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 =) ] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC) I've given you a 24 hour block, because of ] - 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 =) ] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


{{unblock-auto|1=200.56.182.195|2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MatthewHoffman". The reason given for MatthewHoffman's block is: "Three-revert rule violation".</nowiki>|3=Adam Cuerden|4=625115}}

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). ] 00:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:16, 17 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)


This user is asking that their autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

MatthewHoffman (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

IP address: 200.56.182.195 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock • checkuser (log))
Block ID: #625115 (BlockList • unblock)
Blocking admin: Adam Cuerden (talk • blocks)
Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MatthewHoffman". The reason given for MatthewHoffman's block is: "Three-revert rule violation".

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=MatthewHoffman}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=Adam Cuerden | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MatthewHoffman". The reason given for MatthewHoffman's block is: "Three-revert rule violation".</nowiki> | 3=200.56.182.195 | 4=625115 | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=200.56.182.195 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MatthewHoffman". The reason given for MatthewHoffman's block is: "Three-revert rule violation".</nowiki> | 3=Adam Cuerden | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=200.56.182.195 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MatthewHoffman". The reason given for MatthewHoffman's block is: "Three-revert rule violation".</nowiki> | 3=Adam Cuerden | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)

Categories: