User talk:Panarjedde/Warnings and blocks

User notice: temporary 3RR block

 * There was no consensus; the user is pushing a POV based on bald assertions regarding the existence of some universal "Roman Pagan" faith that supposedly existed in the 4th century. He has offered no evidence for his position, while there are reams of modern scholarship confirming the usage in my most recent edit.  His idea of "consensus" is that nobody was willing to get into an edit/revert war with him. Dppowell 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dppowel, I was referring to the "Pagan" vs. "non-Christian" matter. Which is what you denounced me for --Panarjedde 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it looks like your last edit confirmed most of my last edit, the one I was blocked for.
 * All I did was change the capitals to reflect academic usage. The "pagan vs non-Christian" label debate is separate, and I haven't significantly involved myself in it to this point. Dppowell 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

--Panarjedde 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but in the edits of mine you posted, I was reverting the "non-Christian" vs. "Pagan" matter, not the "pagan" vs. "Pagan" one, as you were referring.--Panarjedde 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that you can't play by Wikipedia's rules, because you have clearly made some worthwhile contributions to articles. You just seem to have a hard time believing that others' viewpoints might sometimes be more appropriate for encyclopedic content, and you are seemingly unable to restrain yourself from forcibly asserting your POV.  If you ever return from your block, please reconsider this approach. Dppowell 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on October 23 2006 to Julian the Apostate
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfair block
I wish to apologize for blocking you yesterday, as you correctly pointed out you made four reverts but it was outside the 24 hour limit. As soon as your current block expires I will make a note in your block log that the block was not correct. Stifle (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
As you have admitted to being a sock puppet of a banned user at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kwame Nkrumah, you are also blocked indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Due to the personal representations of R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) and llywrch, I have unblocked you for the time being. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop with 3RR
Check here: AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Attilios --Attilios 19:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point on Ribera, Sicily. Please use an article or project's talk page to illustrate your point. Thanks! From: --T-rex 19:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your behaviour is desruptive
Your add of the POV mark to Syracuse, Sicily is clearly a childish revenge for having lost the debate. I will cite also this move from yours in the investigation about you (and I had even spoken positively about you there...). Please refrain from create chaos in Wikipedia with your aggressive and personally-pushed moves. --Attilios 14:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Advice
Could I suggest that you alter your approach in editing Wikipedia? Mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following suggestions: Thanks, Addhoc 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remain polite per WP:Civility.
 * Solicit feedback and ask questions. This can be done without any formal procedure on article and user talk pages. For instance, "One question: why didn't you move the article to Siege of Orleans? That is certainly the more appropriate name. So, before I move it, I thought I would ask if there was some reason for your not having moved it already."
 * Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties. Afterward open unrelated issues as a separate discussion.
 * Use bullet points to organize a discussion that includes several matters.
 * Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
 * Agghiacciante.--Panarjedde 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Image:Owenpuma.jpg
Hi Panjaredde. Please do not misuse a rollback tool for anything other than correcting simple vandalism. Further misuse of this tool will result in a short block. Proto :: type  14:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)