User talk:Hanlon1755

Page move

I moved your Conditional Statement article to Conditional statement (logic) to comply with our naming criteria. The dual capitalized version is slightly off from our naming standards. There also was a page called Conditional statement, that redirected to the programming concept. I turned that into a disambiguation page. In other words, the page you created remains but now it is located at Conditional statement (logic). Feel free to improve that page further, rest should be taken care of. Shadowjams (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Conditional statement (logic)

The article Conditional statement (logic) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article contains serious errors and is redundant: strict conditional covers the territory better.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 202.124.72.121 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Strict conditional. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fences&Windows 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Strict conditional. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I see you've already been made aware of 3RR and yet you've reverted 6 times today, not including Material conditional.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted at least three times today in Strict conditional. If you don't stop, you will be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am only going through the BRD Process. That requires me to bold my proposed changes to the article. Hanlon1755 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely misunderstanding WP:BRD. I suggest you read it again. That process involves (1) as you have done, boldly making changes (not making changes in bold), (2) editors who disagree with you reverting you (which at least 5 people have done), and (3) a discussion on the talk page where you convince people that you are right and everybody else is wrong. At present you are massively in breach of WP:3RR. Since the consensus is against you, you are also in breach of WP:CONSENSUS. If you edit the article any further you will very possibly be banned; the thing to do is to convince the 5 or more other involved editors that you are right -- or perhaps the time has come to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -- 202.124.73.156 (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Strict conditional, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Sainsbury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

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).

Hanlon1755 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am in the middle of the BRD Process. I am only contributing constructively, and am trying to get input on my proposed changes by using the BRD Process, which requres me to bold my changes for others to see. Hanlon1755 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry that you have mis-read the BRD guidlines. There is no suggestion that you should continue to revert the article to your preferred version in lieu of completing a discussion. Please read the WP:3RR policy you were given a link to earlier. I see six reverts in a 24 hour period. Kuru (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2011 (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.

My Sandbox

My sandbox

Hanlon1755 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]