User talk:Cochese8/Archive1

whoopdee doo

3RR violation[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Logo. 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. Wmahan . 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 8 hours. Here are the reverts in question. alphaChimp^(talk) 16:45, 23 September 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).

Cochese8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Alphachimp- I appreciate your upholding WP rules, but have you read the Talk:Logo, Talk:Logo/Archives/2012#Disputed_link more precisely? Justice is not being served, however small a scale this is

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not "justice", WP:3RR has very few exceptions. --pgk 18:35, 23 September 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.

I read the most recent straw poll at Talk:Logo/Archives/2012#STRAW_POLL_on_disputed_link. It seems pretty clear that the consensus is to remove the link. alphaChimp^(talk) 17:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

Please stop canvassing AIW members to vote to keep your external link. AIW does not exist for canvassing and Inclusionism in this context refers to including articles, not external links. Canvassing hurts Wikipedia. I have reverted your mass User talk posts. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-25 00:48Z

Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks. -- I@n 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]