User talk:Beelzebarn

3RR Warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Hi, I agree with your edit. But please revert your last edit on Middle East Media Research Institute otherwise you will be blocked according to [WP:3RR]]. Isarig has issued a complain against you. Abu ali

OK. I am not an expert in WP:3RR. But please make this point at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Beelzebarn_reported_by_Isarig_15:49.2C_29_January_2007_.28UTC.29.28Result:.29 so that the admins won't block you. It is best not to get into brute force edit wars with Isarig as he has several collaborators and you will be outgunned. Good luck Abu ali 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to stay out of the edit war till the dust has settled, especially as I have mad a comment on the conflict on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Take the long view. Abu ali 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyway it looks like someone else has restored your edit. Isarig has an unusal talent for antagonizing people. Abu ali 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Please read WP:NPA. You have 3h of peace to do this in William M. Connolley 17:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA & CIVIL: 24 hour ban

You came out off the 3h ban above and immediately accused another person at [1] of being "either a liar or incompetent". This is a personal attack. Please read WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA. There is a difference between someone making a remark about whether your edits were reverts and you making remarks about their person (rather than there actions). Please think hard about your behaviour. --BozMo talk 12:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

68.55.138.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Beelzebarn". The reason given for Beelzebarn's block is: "Immediately re-offended on WP:NPA after last ban ended".

Blocking administrator: BozMo (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, no. My direct block was for a 24 hour period, which has expired. Now I am apparently autoblocked (yes, autoblocked) because my IP address has been autoblocked for having been used by a blocked user (me). Beelzebarn 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, oops. Took care of that -- you should be able to edit, now. Stay out of trouble, eh? ;) Luna Santin 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your note. I must admit I thought that these blocks came off automatically. I apologise if you were blocked longer than intended. --BozMo talk 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]