User talk:NottsStudent09

Hello NottsStudent09, welcome to Wikipedia,
Since Wikipedia was created in 2001, the community have created several rules, in order to create a better encyclopaedia. Please have a look at the following topics, before starting to edit Wikipedia.
	Tutorial Learn how to edit, step by step	Sandbox Do experiments here without damaging Wikipedia
	What Wikipedia is not Summary of common misconceptions about Wikipedia	Help Desk Ask questions here about Wikipedia
	Manual of Style How to format a Wikipedia article	FAQ Commonly asked questions
	Policies and Guidelines The rules of the encyclopaedia	Help Wikipedia's help manual
	Adopt-a-User. Ask questions and receive tips from an experienced editor who is very familiar with Wikipedia
This is your talk page, where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians. To leave a message for another Wikipedian, just write on their talk page. Just remember to sign all of your messages with four tildes: ~~~~

Enjoy your stay at Wikipedia! - sorfane 10:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!(NottsStudent09 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

The 3-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. __meco (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Ian Stevenson. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have accepted your request for unblock because you seem to have understood why you are blocked. I will hold you to your promise not to violate the WP:3RR rule again. However, please do not insult other users with your edit summaries. If you do so, you may find yourself blocked for an even longer period of time.

Request handled by: FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

{{unblock-auto|128.243.220.41|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NottsStudent09". The reason given for NottsStudent09's block is: "Edit warring: Violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert |King of Hearts|1545192}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Sorry, you were still being affected by the autoblock on your account. I don't see that it's still in place, so you should be able to edit now. If not, the template I left above is the correct one to use in these cases.

Request handled by: Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks I wasn't sure as that template said not to use it if you were the blocked person. NottsStudent09 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion involving you

Another user has opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal and mentioned you. This is purely a courtesy notice, as I think the allegation is a little bit silly based on the tone and style of your edits and my high opinion of Verbal. There are instructions at the abovelinked page if you would like to respond, or please feel free to ask me if you would like help with any matter. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - the discussion is archived and all is right with the world. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tucker

Hi, if you are going to continue re-adding a tag indicating notability issues onto the Jim Tucker page it would be helpful if you could make an appearance on the articles talk page justifying your actions, and in particular explaining why you do not beleive references 5,7,8,9,10,16,19,27 do not establish notability. Cheers. Artw (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]