User talk:Welsh4ever76

Welcome!

Hello, Welsh4ever76, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! PJM 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from Thomas Jefferson. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. PJM 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I want to add something to a discussion page do I just click edit and add on? Like I did just now?

Yes. --Pilo t|guy 01:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 8 2006 (UTC) to Thomas Jefferson

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you are making to the Thomas Jefferson article seem to be controversial. I would encourage you to talk about the changes on the talk page, in specifics (i.e. X is wrong and Y is better), rather than deleting large sections of the article. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I really don't understand your reasons for deleting the sections in the Thomas Jefferson article. In any event, the change seems quite controversial. If you could discuss the change on the talk page, perhaps people will agree. Until then, reverts go round and round with nothing productive completed. Please indicate the reasons why you want to make the changes you have repeatedly made on the article talk page, Talk:Thomas Jefferson. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 22:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation on the talk page. I have replied there. Please also keep the WP:3RR rule in mind when editing. I think with some discussion, we can make for a better article. Thanks for the work, --TeaDrinker 22:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of reverts

I see you making many reverts at Thomas Jefferson- please cut down considerably on this. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Friday (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

Please take care what you call vandalism- a content dispute is not vandalism, despite what you called it here. Friday (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for excessive reverting on Thomas Jefferson. Relevant diffs include [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I also note a previous 3RR block on the same article, and that you'd already been asked to cut down on reverting. Please, if there is a disagreement, don't just keep reverting. It's pointless and disruptive. Friday (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2006

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Thomas Jefferson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia 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. Heimstern Läufer 03:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

you have now broken the three-revert rule. please cease from reverting quotations which numerous other editors seem to find appropriate. I'll have to report further reverts as violations.

I would suggest that you make your arguments and gain consensus on the Talk page before making changes like this. I would also suggest that if a number of other editors disagree with you and consensus goes against you, you should not continue to revert. This is simple edit warring. thanks. bikeable (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for repeated violation of WP:3RR on Thomas Jefferson after 2 previous blocks for a period of 72 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked by someone on a wikiholiday. I find this very questionable and it is the second time it has happened that I have been blocked by a questionable source. The first time was a person who was no longer at wiki according to their talk page. Welsh4ever76 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't generally considered questionable at all. More important is what got you blocked - not who blocked you. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Welsh4ever76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block request is an attempt at censorship

Decline reason:

No, this block was for your repeated violations of the 3RR policy. Please familiarise yourself with this policy before you return to edit. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No, it is not a revert rule. In the Thomas Jefferson article we have been over this like a hundred times and the consensus was to the leave the disputed section as is. It is a tag team effort to constantly add nonsense to the end of the section. It was already discussed and decided upon. A quick view of the history would prove that. What happens when one side is quoted someone adds quotes from opposing sides and it went on forever. People want to fight over the article and are using the three revert rule to stop people from editing the vandalism.

No, it is not a revert rule. In the Thomas Jefferson article we have been over this like a hundred times and the consensus was to the leave the disputed section as is. It is a tag team effort to constantly add nonsense to the end of the section. It was already discussed and decided upon. A quick view of the history would prove that. What happens when one side is quoted someone adds quotes from opposing sides and it went on forever. People want to fight over the article and are using the three revert rule to stop people from editing the vandalism. Welsh4ever76 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]