User talk:Hanlon1755

Page move

I moved your Conditional Statement article to Conditional statement (logic) to comply with our naming criteria. The dual capitalized version is slightly off from our naming standards. There also was a page called Conditional statement, that redirected to the programming concept. I turned that into a disambiguation page. In other words, the page you created remains but now it is located at Conditional statement (logic). Feel free to improve that page further, rest should be taken care of. Shadowjams (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Conditional statement (logic)

The article Conditional statement (logic) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article contains serious errors and is redundant: strict conditional covers the territory better.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 202.124.72.121 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Strict conditional. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fences&Windows 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Strict conditional. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I see you've already been made aware of 3RR and yet you've reverted 6 times today, not including Material conditional.—Machine Elf ^1735 17:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted at least three times today in Strict conditional. If you don't stop, you will be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am only going through the BRD Process. That requires me to bold my proposed changes to the article. Hanlon1755 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely misunderstanding WP:BRD. I suggest you read it again. That process involves (1) as you have done, boldly making changes (not making changes in bold), (2) editors who disagree with you reverting you (which at least 5 people have done), and (3) a discussion on the talk page where you convince people that you are right and everybody else is wrong. At present you are massively in breach of WP:3RR. Since the consensus is against you, you are also in breach of WP:CONSENSUS. If you edit the article any further you will very possibly be banned; the thing to do is to convince the 5 or more other involved editors that you are right -- or perhaps the time has come to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -- 202.124.73.156 (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Strict conditional, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Sainsbury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2011 (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).

Hanlon1755 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am in the middle of the BRD Process. I am only contributing constructively, and am trying to get input on my proposed changes by using the BRD Process, which requres me to bold my changes for others to see. Hanlon1755 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry that you have mis-read the BRD guidlines. There is no suggestion that you should continue to revert the article to your preferred version in lieu of completing a discussion. Please read the WP:3RR policy you were given a link to earlier. I see six reverts in a 24 hour period. Kuru (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2011 (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.

My Sandbox

My sandbox

Hanlon1755 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Conditional statement (logic) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strict conditional, Talk:Strict conditional and Talk:Material conditional.—Machine Elf ^1735 16:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, see reverts for related edits and linking at:

• Material conditional
• Validity
• Counterfactual conditional
• Indicative conditional
• Entailment

A slow edit war, is an edit war nonetheless, please stop.—Machine Elf ^1735 16:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Logical consequence shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.—Machine Elf ^1735 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Conditional statement (logic) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.72.207 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Entailment shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.—Machine Elf ^1735 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Entailment. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Machine Elf ^1735 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Your recent editing history at Conditional statement (logic) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hanlon1755 regarding what appears to be your fourth revert. That being the case, you'd simply need to self-revert and clearly acknowledge having mistakenly reverted without signing-in.—Machine Elf ^1735 23:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've mistakenly reverted without signing-in. (Although personally I think I should be able to edit Wikipedia whether logged in or not.) Hanlon1755 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can, so long as it's known that's your IP. Please say so on it's talk page. Also, please self-revert your fourth revert on Conditional statement (logic).—Machine Elf ^1735 00:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional statement (logic)

Rather than go through the edit-revert-block loop yet again, can you please explain your case at Talk:Conditional statement (logic)? I understand that your main thesis is that conditionals in mathematics are strict conditionals. However, as yet you have convinced nobody of this. Please try to convince at least one or two of us. -- 202.124.75.40 (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will. Thank you. Hanlon1755 (talk)

On conditional statements

I believe the following definitions:

1. A strict conditional is a conditional statement.
2. A conditional statement is a proposition that can be put into if-then form. Hanlon1755 (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "if-then" form that you have in mind the "if...then..." structure in English? If so, then I think counterexamples would take the form of trivially satisfied conditionals, where the antecedent is necessarily false or the consequent necessarily true. "If Sally goes to the store, then 1+1=2." "If (an all-PKG) God could forge a hammer too big for him to wield, then he would use it to slaughter infants." The first sentence seems odd in English; the second seems false. Both would be true interpreted as strict conditionals. I generally agree that many strict conditionals can normally parsed in English as "if x then y," but I doubt all fit easily into that structure.

If you mean that only strict conditionals are conditional statements, then I strongly disagree.68.63.148.22 (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything can be described using common languages, including English. That's the very purpose of common language - to describe anything we wish to describe. Since everything can be described using English, all "if-then"s can be described using English. I'd like for you to give an example of a strict conditional that can't be parsed in English as "if x then y." I'd also like for you to give an example of a conditional statement that is not a strict conditional. Hanlon1755 (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]