You seem to use the article name for 3RR blocks rather than the history page (which also gives the name). I suppose that is a bit cleaner, should change the tab script then to reflect that? I can also have a history page link generated based on the name (so it can have a link to that too).Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the history-page thing links with "these are the reverts in question" which I feel is confusing... "This is the page history" would be better. But putting the page title into the header is good, I think. Also I often remove the leading ":". William M. Connolley 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the title a bit. The ":" is assuming that you warned them, and it goes under the same section. The warning now lets you assume that you din'nt warn him for that instance (like for a repeat offender), so it uses the title. Is there anything else I can clean up?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I was looking forward to trying this out, but... I've lost all my buttons. Has something gone wrong? William M. Connolley 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...refresh your browser chache...should be working now.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, works now. Couple of comments: rather than the semi-cryptic "was the user warned?" just "would you like it indented" would be better. Um... did it just change somewhat? William M. Connolley 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the prompt box this week. Any other request?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment... seems to work well. Thanks William M. Connolley 08:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Earth Day! LOL! __earth ^(Talk) 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. We don't seem to do it over here... I had a Water Day William M. Connolley 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange...I had an Air Day. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't tell me there's a fire day too. __earth ^(Talk) 06:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heart! With our powers combined... EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to make sure; if I am given a picture free-of-charge, to be used in one, or two Wikipedia articles, only, and the original author has the copyright, yet, gives non-exclusive rights to, I--is this the correct tag for it?; PermissionAndFairUse. Thank youZmmz 09:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, sorry - a message on a copyright page might be best. I'm not sure you can restrict use just to certain pages William M. Connolley 09:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this picture is unusable for Wikipedia, because it does not have a free-enough license (unless, of course, fair use applies).--Stephan Schulz 09:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the owner of the pic has given permission for it to be used in Wiki, which tag should be used then?Zmmz 09:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to find the appropriate copyright-type page and ask there William M. Connolley 09:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll volunteer to help this user out. I manage copyrights at work. The short answer is: he must have the permission of the image's creator. The only thing that changes this is if the creator attached a "free for non-comercial use" or some other such license to the image or to the page that serves the image. --CTSWyneken 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. We're not allowed to use images with permission if it places restrictions on commercial use. Zmmz, you're better off asking on one of the licence discussion pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Over to you... William M. Connolley 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, I was browsing the wikipedia's sci ref desk and [Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Global_Heating I saw this]. To be exact, its about ice and latent heat. It reminds me of my physics. User:Peter Grey asks "once most of the Earth's ice has melted, we should expect the temperature to increase at a faster rate?". Given what for I know from my undergrad physics, I'd say at least the temperature of the water from the melted ice. But what about of global temperature? Should we expect temperature to increase at a faster rate too? __earth ^(Talk) 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I missed this. Will reply on your talk William M. Connolley 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you unblock my "talk page" and immediately and permanently delete the contents of it. You are free to permanently block me from contributing to Wikipedia, as I have no intention of doing so in any case... [trimmed for civility - WMC] --JedRothwell 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer seems to be on the case here, so I shall leave you alone for the moment William M. Connolley 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I came here to ask you for advice about what to do with a page in the middle of a revert war, as I see you are experienced in dealing with violations of the Three Revert Rule. The page Latino has been the site of many edit conflicts in the past few months, mostly stemming from User:Henrymark from what I've observed. This user does not respond to notices on their talk page nor the talk page of Latino itself.

I attempted to report the user for a violation of the three revert rule in the past, though it was denied as the user appears to make slight changes each time to his/her edits, not making them a simply revert. Lately, another user has stepped into the conflict by the name of Burgas00. Other users have been reverting Henrymark's changes as well.

If you see the Latino history page, it's quite clear from the edit notes that there is a conflict going on. I was hoping you could tell me what should be done in this case. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 3RR to me, and blocked accordingly. Slight changes don't matter William M. Connolley 19:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry about that, I guess I got a bit carried away. But, as you say, I was attempting to establish some contact with user henrymark. Anyways I will try to stick to the 3RR, Im still relatively new to wikipedia. By the way, could you tell me how to redirect an article to another one, or change its name? Could you at least direct me to a site which explains all this? Thanks alot!!! --Burgas00 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is done just by making the first text on a page #REDIRECT new name. Page moving... is too easy. I'll let you find that out yourself :-) William M. Connolley 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick help, William! Cowman109^Talk 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Henrymark is back again starting revert wars, this time clearly writing nonsense on the latino page... Im not going to revert his edits (some other wikipedians are already doing so), could you do something about this. Cheers!!!--Burgas00 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All his contributions to a variety of articles are (minor) vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Henrymark This guy should definetly be blocked.

And has been, while I was out... William M. Connolley

The user 69.119.83.198 has reverted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto he has been warned about Three-revert rule. Siddiqui 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I'm off now, best take this to WP:3RR William M. Connolley 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Connolley,

I have been looking at your wikipedia stuff, and it seems that you are extremely experienced in your field. It also seems (particularly from this talk page) that your new administrator role now occupies a significant part of your time and effort here. Of course it is nice that you have had the recognition in being given the admin tools, but really such tedious tasks as policing 3RR could be done by people with considerably less expertise than yourself. I think it would be a shame if your doing so reduced the time you have for writing content for climatology related pages, because that would seem to be where you can make the best contribution.

Arbitrary username 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats very kind of you. Happily, the climate-type pages are quite quiet at the moment. We're all gearing ourselves up to putting in the AR4 text when its public, I think... William M. Connolley 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William, I'm concerned about your response regarding Nygaard. He's trolling on the RS talk page, and is well known for doing this (lots of bizarre questions and objections on talk that people can't understand, much less answer, and very aggressive), and keeps deleting valid material from the guideline and has to be reverted. Now he won't allow the talk page to be archived because he wants to preserve his trolling posts, even those I think it's approaching 90 kb and no one's going to respond to him so the thread's aren't live. Your response was a kind of "plague on both your houses" attitude, and I've seen you do this many times on AN/3RR. There's no point in having the policy if it's not going to be enforced (and it should be enforced regardless of the content issue at stake). If you personally disagree with the policy, then perhaps you could decide to stay away from enforcement issues. I'm really mystified by this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was a kind of "plague on both your houses" attitude, and I've seen you do this many times on AN/3RR. I disagree with both halves of that. If both sides have broken 3RR clearly, then I'll block both, of course, and have. As to this case: FM has now blocked GN; I don't know if thats because you contacted him or because he read my post on AN3. The reason I posted there was partly to prompt someone else to do something, if they wanted to, because it seemed to have got forgotten. The reason I didn't block was... as I said. Bear in mind that "obvious trolling" to someone familiar with the case is not to someone who isn't William M. Connolley 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry for bothering you, but can you please look here and comment on the matter? Thanks. FunkyFly 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been busy. Is this now a dead or settled issue? William M. Connolley 15:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My block expired, but still the blocking is unreasonable. Ideally I'd like a few comments about the legality of the Jonathunder's activities. FunkyFly 16:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks odd to me. I said so there William M. Connolley 21:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William, could you please check this out? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done by another, now William M. Connolley 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed your interaction with User:Megaman Zero about his 3RR violation. I also noticed that he made an edit while not logged in and then logged-in a minute later and re-signed it; I looked-up his IP (204.218.240.42) and checked its talk page and noticed him remonstrating the IP for an edit; there are many, many warnings on the talk page. Further, the IP belongs to the "DoD Dependents Schools-European Region" in Wiesbaden, Germany and I recall a statement on Zero's page that he went to such a school. I know that the IP might be shared, but also know that it is possible that this is an elaborate game he's playing. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know and give you the chance to look into it. --Moby 12:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - well, is this any problem? If he starts editing from that IP while blocked, thats another matter William M. Connolley 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What most struck me about this was the edit where User:Megaman Zero placed a warning on the talk page of the IP he had proved himself to have edited from; i.e. a game he's playing (assuming the IP was him then, too).

He does appear to have made this edit while blocked. --Moby 06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well your baseless accusation of me being a vandal is quite disturbing and I take exception to your lack of edvidence to support your claim of I engaging in nefraious conflict. The DODDS school system is (bafflingly) one of the most profilic vandal IPs wikipedia used to have. I used to get blocked daily when I attempted to edit from the IP due to edits constructed by my peers. Only when I took an active part in monitering the vandalism and discussed this substatially with my former mentor and User:Hall Monitor did the nonsense cease. We were finally forced to contact the officials and put an end to it. It appears that not only was it my school that used the network but several across the country.

There's still scants of silliness sneaking in descriminate intervals. But for the most part, the've found someone else to bother with that nonsense. I sometimes feel I'm the only posiitive contributor from that IP, although a few nice edits sneak in every now and then. -Zero^Talk 06:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Anonymous_editor

Hello, I feel nice talking to you. I have a doubt. Did you mean me or someone else while giving your comments on 3RR page? However, I would like to add that I readily agree with your comments. --Bhadani 13:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not you, but TU William M. Connolley 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock him - I had blocked him for a week. I had requested on 3RR page. Thanks and also thanks for giving me a new wiki ID of "B". Regards. --Bhadani 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for unblocking me. —Hanuman Das 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WILLIAM PLEASE NOTE the following information per the 3RR on Hanuman Das (copied from the noticeboard):

I cannot agree with B here. 1 week is completely over the top for a first offence. Further, its not at all clear that this is even 3RR. William M. Connolley 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT A FIRST OFFENCE: Please see [7] HANUMAN DAS is the NEW username of ADITYANATH [8] Hamsacharya dan 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO, in regard to this note:

I'm rather confused about what is going on here, but 1 week is far too long; so I am indeed unblocking William M. Connolley 17:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William, the edits that I've displayed demonstrate reversions to previous versions of the article or sections of text. As I understand these are the types of reversions considered under 3RR, as also defined by WP:REVERT as well as by Jossi (talk · contribs) who includes the qualification of undoing other people's edits repeatedly in the [9]. It could be that I improperly cited the "previous version reverted to". I would like to get a clear understanding of your logic, if possible, so that I identify the misunderstanding.

1st reversion: clearly a revert to much previous version somewhere in the vicinity of this month old diff 31 March 2006

2nd reversion: undid part of an edit in which a quote was also added a month ago 3 April 2006

3rd reversion: DITTO - this section had been around since almost the beginning of the article 15 March 2006, and in it's mature form here: 19 April 2006

4th reversion: Undid another section that had been in there since almost the beginning of the article: 15 March 2006

5th reversion: SELECTIVELY reverted to his old version, deleting valid, sourced, verifiable, reliable cited text that directly contradicted his weak inclusions 2 May 2006

What you might not immediately see is that Hanuman Das has added almost nothing of value to this article, and on the contrary, since the BEGINNING (see the history for yourself) has vandalized it with his corrosive edits or deletions. His monumental accomplishment was the "conflicting views" section, which carries no academic weight - but it takes someone with experience to see that. Which begs the question why? Well, you might notice that his interest in this article directly corresponded to my interest in the Nath article. He started attacking this article to divert me from adding information to the Nath article - which he has guarded closely like a bulldog for the longest time. You will see that his interest in Yogiraj Gurunath started at about the same time as my interest in the Nath article started [10]. I'm not the only one that feels this way - see contribs of 86.10.229.248 (talk · contribs), Kalagni Nath (talk · contribs), and AgainstFakeClaims (talk · contribs) - other major contributors to this article. Hamsacharya dan 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that I should take the issue up in the discussions page which I did before being blocked by you so I dont understand why you blocked me? Please explain!

Sorry. Prev block didn't work (or you wouldn't be able to write that). I've done it properly now. Answered on your talk page William M. Connolley 18:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your poor judgement regarding this is dually noted. I made only three revisions in 24 hours, what you may have established as a fourth revision was in fact not a reversion ([11]), but rearrangement of wording that had nothing to do with recent arguments, and I actually also elaborated on the information that I once was trying to revert. I also removed some original research (see WP:NOR. In my opinion you are not fit to be an administrator if you cannot investigate your blocks to a extent so as that you can actually verify there was a violation of WP:3RR. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, I agree with WMC. The magnitude of the revert is not the issue: a revert is a revert. It's pretty simple: if you do not want to be blocked for violating the 3RR, then do not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. If you are unable to understand what a revert is, as your comment here indicates, then you should consider applying a 1RR rule to yourself to avoid trouble. Nandesuka 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to the 3RR violation by User:Ndru01. Just to let you know that he's now adopted the rather transparent identity of Infoandru01 (see Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets/Ndru01). Infoandru01 has continued to change the same page as well as recreating deleted content yet again. Could you extend the block if appropriate? (Although he has also been editing anonymously in any case.) Thanks for your attention --Cedders^tk 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done William M. Connolley 18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[mv'd to talk page William M. Connolley 21:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)][reply]

1. The protection was asked by me with the aim of defending the article of the continous erasures (starting with November 2005) by User:Soman. However, owing to some unfortunate cicumstances, the very version promoted by Soman and put into effect with five reverts within lesss than 24 h has now been protected. Comments and help on the issue are more than welcome, anyway.

2. I deny User:Advocatus diaboli being my sock puppet, although we are acquainted. More detailed check would prove that different computers are used by Constanz and the newly registered user. Thus, I do not agree with re-establishing version by the blocked user and then protecting it. Even if I, User:Constanz, had made my fourth and fifth revert (just like Soman did) instead of Advocatus Diaboli, the version protected should have been the last one.I do not see any reason for an admin to revert to the previous previous version before protecting.

As we all know, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. The case concerned, however, does not involve vandalism and the sock puppet claim is unproved; also, this does not justify version changes by admins.--Constanz - Talk 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William. I'm having a problem at Frequency probability. User:INic seems to think s/he owns the page, and has repeatedly deleted any mention of Bayesianism, the main alternative to frequentism. I think this is a clear violation of NPOV. If you check the page history you can see a string of similar incidents in the past. In my view, User:INic should be warned off, and barred from editing the page if s/he persists. User:JQ

I had a look (& its now on my watchlist), but you have better help than me. Let me know if it goes wrong again William M. Connolley 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I'll alert you if need be. JQ 23:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INic is just getting worse. He's doing regular reverts, abusing other editors and so on. In my view, he needs a 24-hour block at a minimum JQ 22:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not close to 3RR. But with Michael Hardy on your side, how can you lose? I've added a warning re personal attacks William M. Connolley 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for calling in the cavalry prematurely.

Hey, William. Thanks for the note on my talk page. You might want to take a closer look at what was going on, at the edit history. Contrary to what the user may be claiming, I didn't revert a thing, actually. I posted npa warnings, per WP:NPA and WP:PAIN. The user has removed them, but I have not reinserted them. I've followed the prescribed pattern of npa, npa2, and npa3. I'd ask that you reconsider your warning to me. Appreciate your consideration of this. Regards, PKtm 20:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um. You're right - I only saw npa repeatedly, and missed the 123. Apologies. William M. Connolley 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a second look, and for the amendments you left on the associated pages. - PKtm 08:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been blocked for 3RR, but I actually never broke the 3RR rule, I made only 3 reverts, as allowed by the rules. Please check the history of the page. Regards, Grandmaster 06:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look again? This was the change I introduced: [12]

When it was reverted, I made my first revert. [13]

This was second: [14]

This was third: [15]

I tried to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but without any success (as usual with this person), the major academic sources that I cited were ignored in favor of a very obscure one and the changes reverted. The block has already expired by now, but I just want to clarify the issue. Thanks for your attention to this issue. Regards, Grandmaster 10:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts are [16], then [17], [18], [19]; the last (first) being a revert by virtue of [20] William M. Connolley 11:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the first one qualifies as rv. I’ll be careful next time. Thanks. Grandmaster 15:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I also recommend looking at WP:1RR too - its best to stick well clear of 4R William M. Connolley 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, assuming there are two simultanious revert wars on an article, one over the first paragraph and one over the last and I revert twice for the first paragraph and twice for the last one, will I have violated the 3RR? Telex 16:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All reverts count. They don't have to be related. See WP:3RR William M. Connolley 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so, then why does the snitch-smn-for-3RR-vio template over at WP:AN3 ask for the version reveted to - there could be more than one. Telex 16:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC) (these are entirely theoretical questions btw)[reply]

Indeed there could be William M. Connolley 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the content of the deleted edits to Haathi Mere Saathi.

Why? William M. Connolley 08:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can vouch for GB this person is fighting vandals 203.217.48.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that are using various IPs on the Siamese Fighting Fish article. Please remove the 3RR. If you read the entry above yours at GB talk page you will see I was providing guidance earlier. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twas only a 3h block, its probably gone by now. But anyway, what he was reverting was not obvious vandalism William M. Connolley 19:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't realise already, global warming is on FAC. Take a look! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've voted, guess which way :-) William M. Connolley 08:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, do you have a proposal for solving the "mixed formatting" problem? We're so close to getting this FA... Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal would be to upgrade cite.php to cope, it nearly can already. But failing that... no, I don't know. I'd *like* GW to be FA, and I think it deserves to be, but sadly I think too many people are hung up on the formatting stuff (I find that frustrating); and in the end, I'd rather it failed FA than we ref-ise it, because FA itself isn't terribly important to me.

Hi. Thanks for placing those blocks. I think they'd've carried on forever given the chance... —Whouk (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks are good in the short term, but there are (slightly) mitigating circumstances: after being involved in trying to stop the war yesterday, I've left a note at at AN3 Aquilina 15:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. William M. Connolley 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the block on User:190_Proof. Nloth 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User:190_Proof has now been blocked indefinitely. Nloth 07:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I thought I would help you guys out as your were buried in references that needed to be cited, and as the footnote citations are the standard used, i created them. please do not revert them, since they took several hours to complete and doing some other kind of formatting will be a waste of time, since you will eventually have to do exactly what I have done to the article. Thanks! :) Judgesurreal777 08:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. But... you should make yourself aware of the history of all of this. Check out Kyoto protocol which ended up going to arbcomm over the reference format (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, principle 2), and ended up in favour of inline/harvard. Please *don't* revert back to ref style until this is sorted out at talk. This is a controversial change. Note that "are the std" won't do - the cite policy is to leave-as-is if people complain about changing. William M. Connolley 09:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bright888, whom you blocked for excessive reverting, is at it again on Japanese_people. In fact, unless I've misunderstood the time stamp for the block, he has somehow evaded the block. I'm not sure what to do about this, but this guy is really persistant and doesn't respond to discussion.Bill 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will look. Put it on 3RR next time, though William M. Connolley 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure where you want me to put it. Is 3RR one of your headings? I can't read much of your table of contents: it shows up overlaid on the text. Or is there another 3RR page?Bill 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is WP:3RR. As to this time: you've missread the timestamps. And B has reverted *once* since the block on that page. Come on. William M. Connolley 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't understand the 3RR policy. So its okay after 24 hours to resume doing exactly the same thing, making the same change against consensus? So at this point 3RR is not relevant (unless someone does reverts too often) and the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration or whatever?Bill 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so. If B does more than 3R in the next 24h (or indeed, in any 24h period not the same as the last one) then B can be reported/blocked. But not for just 1 more revert. This can be called a "slow revert war" (I should know). You can go for days, weeks, months (argh) as long as you stick to 3R/24. If that happens, and both sides persist, then you need WP:DR (*not* arbcomm as a first resort) William M. Connolley 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks.Bill 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check if this is a 3RR. The user added 4 times the same sentence in the same previous version within an hour...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ptmccain is [again] in violation of WP:3RR by executing his 14th identical revert to the Martin Luther article (the last of which was his 4th within a 24 hour period). Ptmccain has not only repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with official WP policy and engaged in repeated acts of vandalism, but has demonstrated his contempt for WP policy and administration. See here, for example, where he again blanks the page after be directly told not to do so and adds, "Your "Stern Warning" is received, with no little amusement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ptmccain

14th # 12:04, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (move text to a more appropriate location)

13th # 02:50, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)

12th # 17:56, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)

11th # 12:13, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to a more appropriate location)

Please note that the 14th revert was executed less than 24 hours after the 11th identical revert in violation of WP:3RR. Your assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated by at least one and I suspect many Wikipedians. Doright 21:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done William M. Connolley 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have also expressed concern about the content of Bios theory. In Talk:Bios theory I have just listed considerable evidence of an apparent conflict of interest on the part of User:Lakinekaki. I have also enumerated almost one dozen serious objections to the claims made in the very first pargraph of the article itself, which appears to be yet another example of a cranky "theory" masquerading as mainstream science. Even worse, I have presented evidence of a hidden agenda behind the sponsorship of the "research" reported in the article. This appears to be one of the most troubling instances I have come across to date of an apparent attempt to use the WP to deceive our readers.

What to do? ---CH 06:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [21] - Could you please suggest a way that I can respond there? — Instantnood 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're trolling. There was no need to respond there. Let these things go. Don't reply to this William M. Connolley 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]