Misplaced Pages

User talk:CABlankenship

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kjaer (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 1 January 2009 (3RR: warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:29, 1 January 2009 by Kjaer (talk | contribs) (3RR: warning)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, CABlankenship, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

I'm sorry I undid your edit. Please see the new talk page subsection I created on this matter. You very well may get your way on this matter yet, so don't throw up your arms in frustration prematurely. I just want to ask you some questions.Chrisrus (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I think I have a good idea. Let's rewrite it backward, so that it starts with the crazy rant quote, moves to the partial concession, and then ends up with the complete acceptance. Do you see what I'm getting at? Chrisrus (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky

Hi, I believe you'd be better off ignoring someone who says : It is not a good idea to try to advance science through the use of reason and rational argumentation... All the best, Pinkville (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A comment has been posted about you

A comment has been posted about you at: Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche#User:CABlankenship. I invite you to join in on the discussion. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Abrhm17

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/User:CABlankenship. Thank you.

Vandalism

Do not remove the tag while the matter is under disputer, it is vandalism and is also subject to action including blocking by admin Kjaer (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute has been resolved. Link was provided to page. Accuracy of quote was verified by abrhm17 (who you are now falsely accusing of being my sockpuppet) and a 3rd user. CABlankenship (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.