User talk:Holla213

UNC page

Hi. I'm sure you meant well, but I undid your edits to the UNC page. In the archived discussion section there was a long debate on which alternative names and abbreviations to include. It was decided to use the official abbreviations sanctioned by the school ("UNC" and "Carolina") and also to include "North Carolina" since it is how the university is referred to in sports and by the NCAA. Also, the "Public Ivy" part of the lead is only there as a way to show the university is a highly regarded public institution. I agree that it should probably be said some other way, but I don't think cluttering up the lead with an explanation of what a "Public Ivy" is is a good idea, especially since the term is wikilinked to all the information. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kww (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I'm walking away, because I don't like being blocked. I gave solid reasons, which you have chosen to ignore. The way this works is simple: if you add material, and someone else takes it out, it stays out until you talk it out on the discussion page. It doesn't work the other way, where you add material and then constantly add it back in every time someone reverts. I'm the second editor that has undone your change, and it won't take more than a few hours for someone else to notice what you've done to the lead and take it out again. When that happens, if you revert him, you will be blocked. It's as simple as that.Kww (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I tried to take the material out once. It was added back immediately. I'm confused about the UNC-CH page. It seems to have its own life on wikipedia.

It's you that's adding it back in! If you just had left the article where I had it, it would have stayed out. I also have no idea why you think I'm from North Carolina ... I just have this page on my watchlist because it gets vandalized. And please, please, please, put ~~~~ after your comments on a talk page so that they get signed.Kww (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance

Holla213, you have now reverted four ties in 24 hours. This is a violation of the three revert rule. You have the option of reverting yourself, or you will likely be blocked for this violation. Metros (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Holla213_reported_by_User:Kww_.28Result:_.29 contains the details.Kww (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

~~Metros (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Your block is now 1 week for your sockpuppetry with User:Recardoz and the IP. Please do not continue to disrupt the article. Thanks, Metros (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block to 1 month for continuing to use IP socks to evade the block and persist in edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]