User talk:Caramella1

3RR
Your recent editing history at Two envelopes problem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GiantSnowman 12:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Caramella, you have reverted twice even after you have been warned. Please stop. Please try to understand how the BRD-cycle works. iNic (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, despite warning, at Two envelopes problem. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GiantSnowman 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Jpgordon, as you wish. I wrote that I want to request for comments. Isn't that enough to convince you that I am not intend to "damage or disrupt to Wikipedia" but instead I am trying to find alternative and productive ways to stop this edit warring with INic ?

Two envelopes problem
There needs to be firm consensus on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 09:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What happens if an editor (INic) will never accept a change and all other editors agree with it? Also why do you suggest that we should keep INics version until firm consensus and not the version accepted by more editors? Caramella1 (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleting comments on the talk page.
Caramella, you should not delete comments from the talk page. If you believe they are the work of a sockpuppet you should go to WP:SPI with your evidence. You must not make accusations of sockpuppetry unless this has been conformed by the appropriate authority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Martin, I have already done this and I thought you were aware of this. See here. User Perswapish, whose comment I deleted, is currently blocked indefinitely by WP administrators for sockpuppetry. INic was also blocked for a month for sockpuppetry but made a request for unblocking and the administrators couldn't prove that he is connected to Perswapish. Read the investigation page and make your own mind if Perswapish's account is controlled by INic or not. To me there is absolutely no doubt. Caramella1 (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
 * 1 week now, for disruptive editing, in particular, . I am afraid you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Please think very well and do not resume disruption after the block expires. 1 week chosen given the preceding warning and block history.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)