Misplaced Pages

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)

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

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

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. I am here under my real name! I am no "sock"! |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{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. I am here under my real name! I am no "sock"! |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

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

{{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. I am here under my real name! I am no "sock"! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Irreducible Complexity debate

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