User talk:Notespace

Refractory period (sex)

Please note that your edits on Refractory period (sex) are in violation of the Wikipedia three revert rule and you are in danger of being blocked. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be blocked but not the other guy and his sock puppets? Notespace 17:55, 9 September 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

reverting someone's attempt to place their own personal beliefs into an accurate stable version - refer to User:Graham87's edits on 2nd Sept 2007 at 08.52 and 08.54. thanks

Decline reason:

WIthout getting into the content dispute itself, you did edit war. Please take some time and when you come back, discuss changes on the talk page.— Navou ^banter 18:16, 9 September 2007 (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.

It takes two to edit war. All parties were warned; all parties were blocked for reverting after the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Munificence listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Munificence. Since you had some involvement with the Munificence redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]