User talk:172.250.31.151 - Revision history

MalnadachBot: Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)

2022-09-02T03:29:23Z

Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 03:29, 2 September 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Blanked IP talk}}
	{{Dynamic IP\|Time Warner Cable\|host=cpe-172-250-31-151.socal.res.rr.com}}


	<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''18:02, 31 October 2013''' for persistent ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx\|" code. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first.  v/r - ]] 17:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock -->
	:''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice -->
	::I'm going to leave some advice for you in addition to the block notice. Misplaced Pages is a community and collaborative project. Fairness is biased toward the good of the encyclopedia. When your actions become disruptive, even if it's unfair to you, you're liable for a block. In this case, you became disruptive for failing to adhere to the advice of other editors. You became ] with other editors who were acting appropriately because you did not understand neither the '']'' nor the '']'' rules. You were given direct links to the written rules and advised on the unwritten ones. Your question was "If it's not in writing how would anyone know that?" People know it because when they break the rule, others teach them. You refused to listen when others tried to teach you. That's how folks know.--v/r - ]] 17:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

	== block ==

	hi,

	I hesitate to make a categorical comment not knowing the full story, as the block discussion seems to have been suppressed. But, to me it seems rather heavy handed. On your part you could have tried to tone down the rhetoric, and stayed away from personal engagements with other editors. However annoying they may seem, it never ends well to get into personal conflicts. However, I have seen far more disruptive behaviour, and you seemed to be acting in good faith, so IMO it was not justified. ] (]) 08:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	:The block discussion was not suppressed. Please see --] '']'' 15:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

	== Unblock request ==
	{{{unblock reviewed \| 1=your reason here: At 18:02 it's been 24 hours, please unblock this IP immediately because Misplaced Pages "blocking policy" says "incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in '''24 hour blocks'''" -- not week long blocks. This is a first time block. The blocking policy says that blocking can occur under "disruptive behavior" for "gross incivility". But as Peregrine981 wrote above, the incident is clearly not "gross incivility" and was "not justified". The blocker went over the alotted 24 hours for a first time block. '''Misplaced Pages Blocking Policy''': Under "duration of blocks" see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BP ] (]) 17:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC) \| decline=The key word there being "typically" as opposed to "absolutely mandated in all cases." The blocking admin deliberately set the block length to exclude you from the remainder of the discussion you were disrupting, which is a perfectly acceptable use of administrative discretion. As that is the only reason you have provided for desiring to be unblocked your request is denied. If you appeal again you might want to consider addressing your own behavior instead. ] (]) 19:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)}}

	== Unblock request ==

	{{unblock reviewed \| 1=your reason here: First of all, I created the move request discussion on the Millennials talk page, and there is absolutely no evidence provided that I was disruptive there. Seriously, can you provide it please? You cant just make stuff up. The "double-vote" issue was not a double vote. I immediately honored the admins request to change it to "comment" instead. And it always read "Support (again)" anyway. I '''never deleted anyone other editor's comments''' from anywhere on the Millennial Generations talk page -- ever. I did however, insert some new comments that expanded the discussion. The new comments were needed because as time goes by there is new information that fits into -- and underneath -- another discussion thread. There is nothing wrong with that. Again, please provide any evidence of disruptive editing on the Millennial Generation's talk page. If you dont, then it does not bode well for Misplaced Pages's reputation as a fair venue that "anyone can edit". And it appears that a group of editors are trying to exclude people from the discussion using their own loose interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policy. And btw, Misplaced Pages will lose me as a volunteer and customer who has provided free, top-college educated, valuable content to this site. \| decline=Your request essentially boils down to "I did nothing wrong" despite many editors (via talk pages and the ANI report) noting that your edits were indeed disruptive. This certainly implies that you would continue the same disruption should you be unblocked, and ] your unblock request is denied. You would be well served to read the ] which would help you better understand why it is your appeals have been declined. ]] 22:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)}}

	==Unblock request==

	{{unblock reviewed \| 1=your reason here: The original reason for the block was "disruptive edits at the Millennial Generation" talk page. So far, no admin has provided any evidence of a disruptive edit there. The second unblock request admin is off-point by declining because he/she brings up unrelated issue(s) to the original sanction. So unblock my IP or provide evidence. It's really not that difficult. Even the original blocker just wrote on another page that '''"There has been a recent spike at the administrator's noticeboards to skip the whole 'evidence' phase and move straight into mob rule."''' See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Srich32977&diff=579099825&oldid=579064761 In addition, Peregrine981 wrote that I seemed to be "acting in good faith, so the block was not justified". ] (]) 17:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC) \| decline=This IP address is not currently blocked. I won't waste my time explaining all the errors and inaccuracies in your complaints on this page, but I will just mention that an administrator who reviews an unblock request is expected to take into account all relevant facts, whether or not they were included in the original reason given for blocking. ] (]) 13:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)}}

	As I said, provide any example of a disruptive edit from this IP on the Millennials' talk page. It's not a waste of time. I believe it's your responsibility as an admin. of this site. If all of you have declined to find any then obviously it doesn't exist. ] (]) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

MalnadachBot: Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)

2022-03-18T05:38:52Z

Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:38, 18 March 2022
Line 18:		Line 18:
	== Unblock request ==		== Unblock request ==

	{{unblock reviewed \| 1=your reason here: First of all, I created the move request discussion on the Millennials talk page, and there is absolutely no evidence provided that I was disruptive there. Seriously, can you provide it please? You cant just make stuff up. The "double-vote" issue was not a double vote. I immediately honored the admins request to change it to "comment" instead. And it always read "Support (again)" anyway. I '''never deleted anyone other editor's comments''' from anywhere on the Millennial Generations talk page -- ever. I did however, insert some new comments that expanded the discussion. The new comments were needed because as time goes by there is new information that fits into -- and underneath -- another discussion thread. There is nothing wrong with that. Again, please provide any evidence of disruptive editing on the Millennial Generation's talk page. If you dont, then it does not bode well for Misplaced Pages's reputation as a fair venue that "anyone can edit". And it appears that a group of editors are trying to exclude people from the discussion using their own loose interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policy. And btw, Misplaced Pages will lose me as a volunteer and customer who has provided free, top-college educated, valuable content to this site. \| decline=Your request essentially boils down to "I did nothing wrong" despite many editors (via talk pages and the ANI report) noting that your edits were indeed disruptive. This certainly implies that you would continue the same disruption should you be unblocked, and ] your unblock request is denied. You would be well served to read the ] which would help you better understand why it is your appeals have been declined. ]~~<sup>~~]~~</sup>~~ 22:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed \| 1=your reason here: First of all, I created the move request discussion on the Millennials talk page, and there is absolutely no evidence provided that I was disruptive there. Seriously, can you provide it please? You cant just make stuff up. The "double-vote" issue was not a double vote. I immediately honored the admins request to change it to "comment" instead. And it always read "Support (again)" anyway. I '''never deleted anyone other editor's comments''' from anywhere on the Millennial Generations talk page -- ever. I did however, insert some new comments that expanded the discussion. The new comments were needed because as time goes by there is new information that fits into -- and underneath -- another discussion thread. There is nothing wrong with that. Again, please provide any evidence of disruptive editing on the Millennial Generation's talk page. If you dont, then it does not bode well for Misplaced Pages's reputation as a fair venue that "anyone can edit". And it appears that a group of editors are trying to exclude people from the discussion using their own loose interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policy. And btw, Misplaced Pages will lose me as a volunteer and customer who has provided free, top-college educated, valuable content to this site. \| decline=Your request essentially boils down to "I did nothing wrong" despite many editors (via talk pages and the ANI report) noting that your edits were indeed disruptive. This certainly implies that you would continue the same disruption should you be unblocked, and ] your unblock request is denied. You would be well served to read the ] which would help you better understand why it is your appeals have been declined. ]] 22:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)}}

	==Unblock request==		==Unblock request==

MalnadachBot: Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)

2022-03-02T05:06:32Z

Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:06, 2 March 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:

	I hesitate to make a categorical comment not knowing the full story, as the block discussion seems to have been suppressed. But, to me it seems rather heavy handed. On your part you could have tried to tone down the rhetoric, and stayed away from personal engagements with other editors. However annoying they may seem, it never ends well to get into personal conflicts. However, I have seen far more disruptive behaviour, and you seemed to be acting in good faith, so IMO it was not justified. ] (]) 08:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)		I hesitate to make a categorical comment not knowing the full story, as the block discussion seems to have been suppressed. But, to me it seems rather heavy handed. On your part you could have tried to tone down the rhetoric, and stayed away from personal engagements with other editors. However annoying they may seem, it never ends well to get into personal conflicts. However, I have seen far more disruptive behaviour, and you seemed to be acting in good faith, so IMO it was not justified. ] (]) 08:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	:The block discussion was not suppressed. Please see --] ~~<sup>~~'']''~~</sup>~~ 15:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)		:The block discussion was not suppressed. Please see --] '']'' 15:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

	== Unblock request ==		== Unblock request ==

Ponyo: Undid revision 630634478 by 202.166.22.207 (talk) editors are allowed to remove messages from their talk page (see WP:BLANKING)

2014-10-22T18:27:58Z

Undid revision 630634478 by 202.166.22.207 (talk) editors are allowed to remove messages from their talk page (see WP:BLANKING)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 18:27, 22 October 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:

	As I said, provide any example of a disruptive edit from this IP on the Millennials' talk page. It's not a waste of time. I believe it's your responsibility as an admin. of this site. If all of you have declined to find any then obviously it doesn't exist. ] (]) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)		As I said, provide any example of a disruptive edit from this IP on the Millennials' talk page. It's not a waste of time. I believe it's your responsibility as an admin. of this site. If all of you have declined to find any then obviously it doesn't exist. ] (]) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

	== You deleted Reliable Sources at ] ==

	] Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your ], which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Misplaced Pages's ] usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:Uw-login -->

	Please be aware that you just deleted a ] (NPR 06 Oct 2014) from the ] article. I see that you have actually been blocked for disruptive editing at generation-related articles in the past and hope that you do not continue this pattern at ]. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Edit Warring at ] ==

	] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

	To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::Actually ] broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......] (]) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

202.166.22.207: Restored appropriate warnings.

2014-10-22T10:06:04Z

Restored appropriate warnings.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 10:06, 22 October 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:

	As I said, provide any example of a disruptive edit from this IP on the Millennials' talk page. It's not a waste of time. I believe it's your responsibility as an admin. of this site. If all of you have declined to find any then obviously it doesn't exist. ] (]) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)		As I said, provide any example of a disruptive edit from this IP on the Millennials' talk page. It's not a waste of time. I believe it's your responsibility as an admin. of this site. If all of you have declined to find any then obviously it doesn't exist. ] (]) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

			== You deleted Reliable Sources at ] ==

			] Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your ], which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Misplaced Pages's ] usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:Uw-login -->

			Please be aware that you just deleted a ] (NPR 06 Oct 2014) from the ] article. I see that you have actually been blocked for disruptive editing at generation-related articles in the past and hope that you do not continue this pattern at ]. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Edit Warring at ] ==

			] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

			To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:::Actually ] broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......] (]) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

172.250.31.151 at 23:46, 8 October 2014

2014-10-08T23:46:28Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 23:46, 8 October 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:

	As I said, provide any example of a disruptive edit from this IP on the Millennials' talk page. It's not a waste of time. I believe it's your responsibility as an admin. of this site. If all of you have declined to find any then obviously it doesn't exist. ] (]) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)		As I said, provide any example of a disruptive edit from this IP on the Millennials' talk page. It's not a waste of time. I believe it's your responsibility as an admin. of this site. If all of you have declined to find any then obviously it doesn't exist. ] (]) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

	== You deleted Reliable Sources at ] ==

	] Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your ], which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Misplaced Pages's ] usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:Uw-login -->

	Please be aware that you just deleted a ] (NPR 06 Oct 2014) from the ] article. I see that you have actually been blocked for disruptive editing at generation-related articles in the past and hope that you do not continue this pattern at ]. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Edit Warring at ] ==

	] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

	To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::Actually ] broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......] (]) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

172.250.31.151: /* Edit Warring at Generation Z */

2014-10-08T17:02:36Z

Edit Warring at Generation Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 17:02, 8 October 2014
Line 38:		Line 38:
	To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::Actually 202.166.22.207 broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......] (]) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)		:::Actually ] broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......] (]) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

172.250.31.151: /* Edit Warring at Generation Z */

2014-10-08T16:50:53Z

Edit Warring at Generation Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:50, 8 October 2014
Line 38:		Line 38:
	To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	--Actually 202.166.22.207 broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......] (]) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)		:::Actually 202.166.22.207 broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......] (]) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

172.250.31.151: /* Edit Warring at Generation Z */

2014-10-08T16:50:42Z

Edit Warring at Generation Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:50, 8 October 2014
Line 38:		Line 38:
	To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	--Actually 202.166.22.207 broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......		--Actually 202.166.22.207 broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......] (]) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

172.250.31.151: /* Edit Warring at Generation Z */

2014-10-08T16:12:49Z

Edit Warring at Generation Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:12, 8 October 2014
Line 38:		Line 38:
	To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	--Actually 202.166.22.207 broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". Just saying......		--Actually 202.166.22.207 broke the three-revert rule today when it made the 4th revert. The rule says "'''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period'''". Just saying......