Warning and blocks

Please, add new messages at the "Discussion" section, below, unless they are warnings or blocks notifications. Thanks

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)[reply]

Dppowel, I was referring to the "Pagan" vs. "non-Christian" matter. Which is what you denounced me for ([1] [2] [3])--Panarjedde 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[4] --Panarjedde 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding reversions[5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stop with 3RR

Check here: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Attilios --Attilios 19:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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.

Thanks, Addhoc 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agghiacciante.--Panarjedde 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your edit to Image:Owenpuma.jpg

If you do not believe the image should be there, as it is not a candidate for speedy deletion, please go to WP:IFD. Proto::type 14:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a candidate for speedy deletion only after you changed the license; before this action of yours (which I needed to remind you) it was a candidate for SD.--Panarjedde 14:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that immediately hiding warnings about your misconduct or misuse of the popups rollback tool is rude, and will give people a bad impression of you. Also, I not you also didn't bother informing the uploader of the image that it was being tagged for deletion. I have told him. Proto::type 14:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it rude to reinsert in the talk page things the user has removed? As far as I know, archiving warnings is not a crime, but please point me to the relative rule page if I am wrong. Also, the disputed fair use tag is good, also because it shortens the lengthy procedure to have a clearly CV image deleted.--Panarjedde 14:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panarjedde, while it is certainly not "a crime" to deal with things the way you are, it really is frowned upon. The usual way to archive is to wait until your talk page is too long, and then to move that whole page (minus any active discussions) to your archives. Immediate removal to an archive of a warning, or any discussion that is not a personal attack, isn't looked upon very well. Immediate removal prevents others coming to your page from reading such things (even if you've moved them to a "warnings" page, people aren't likely to go there). Transparency is the real issue here--moving things immediately is clearly an attempt to keep actions out of the "public eye". I think you would improve your relations with many editors here if you would keep that in mind. If you're "ashamed" enough of the responses you get to your actions to hide them away, then you should perhaps consider changing those actions. However, if you're editing in the right manner, and the comments on your talk page are basically the rantings of those for whom the truth hurts, then other more responsible editors will be able to see that--we will see that your "troubles" are in fact the result of you doing things right. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll leave them here. The next ones, I mean.--Panarjedde 14:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Owenpuma.jpg, again

He disputes the replaceability tag I added, discuss it with me, then simply removes the tag. And has the courage to say he acted as an admin since the beginning...

No, Panarjedde, the dispute is between you and Kingjeff; I have been acting as an admin the whole time. At this point, I have stepped in and removed the tag, as in my judgement the fair use assertion was correct. Clear? Proto::type 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? So who did put the disputed tag? And if it is a dispute between me and Kingjeff, why he did not edit the image page, and added only one non-pertinent comment to its talk page? Who wrote "I've tried to find a copyfree image of Hargreaves before, and have had no luck. A fair use promotional poster is the best compromise, and is acceptable under policy" ? [6]

Try again.--Panarjedde 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No answer. And the image got deleted

Warning

Another guy thinking that footballers pictures taken from websites are promotional, and under fair use license

Never add tags to images with Rationale provided and the correct licencing, unless you have found a free alternative of similar value to the reader to put in its place (as per Wikipedia's image policy) - Deathrocker 21:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't spam my page with your idiocy, and read the image policy before placing incorrect tags on images, I won't warn you again, I'll just report what you are doing. - Deathrocker 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did not read the image policy, and of course thinks to know it well...

I've emailed an administrator reporting your behaviour. Hopefully you will be blocked. - Deathrocker 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked, instead, for personal attacks.

Image:Logo_Sapienza_2006_-_3D.jpg

Same guy as above, putting a replaceability tag on an image I uploaded as retaliation. He claims a logo is replaceable!

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo_Sapienza_2006_-_3D.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

- Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Deathrocker 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aureus - Adriano - RIC 0144.jpg

Still the guy above. In order to be annoying, he adds a replaceability tag, which is used for fair use images, on a non-fair use image!

Thanks for uploading Image:Aureus - Adriano - RIC 0144.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

- Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Deathrocker 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

it's not forbidden

because it's acceptable in articles that have to do with Jewish subjects not to use BC. Anyway, using none like you did is probably best. Amoruso 18:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also acceptable to use AD/BC, and rules say than, when two styles are acceptable you are not allowed to changwe from one style to the other.--Panarjedde 19:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panarjedde, the article had a mix of styles, which isn't acceptable, so a change to some of them must be made. The article has used BCE/CE back to some time in 2004, so that convention is clearly established. It is also generally accepted that articles relating in a significant way to Judaism and Islam should avoid BC/AD whenever possible. You'd do well to just give in, since it's the right thing to do. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Masada articles currently uses only (AD/)BC eras; 2) AD/BC was used back in 2002 3) If there is a different policy for Jewish/Islam-related articles I would gladly take a look.--Panarjedde 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of ancient Rome wikification request

I am perplexed by your most recent edit to this page in which you state in your summary "do NOT remove tags before reaching consensus. this page is not compliant with WP MOS". There was no consensus to ADD wikificaiton tags, you did it unilaterally, so I then removed the tags unilaterally after having wikified the content as per your original comments. The article as far as I can see now complies with the manual of style. Perhaps you could suggest how it fails to comply with wikipedia manual of style, so that I can therefore edit it to ensure compliance. Perhaps you could also suggest the correct procedure to remove the wikification tag once this work is complete, since you seem to object to my unilateral manual removal of it. Given the short length of the article I can't help but feel that less time would have been wasted if you had simply made whatever wikification you feel necessary yourself. I hate having to waste productive editing time instead having to back and forth on talk page over minor issues of article wikification. Please make any reply on my own talk page, since I do not watch other editor's talk pages. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 12:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need of consensus to add a tag. In order to remove it, however, you need to be an admin (not involved in the discussion), or to gain the original tagger approval, or to gain wide consensus.

If you take a look at the MOS, you will see, for example, that it requires a lead section. Furthemore, in the current version, the article lacks of proper categorization, and is more of a collection of links to other pages than an encyclopedi article in itself.

As regards the "waste of time", it would be nice to learn first how to properly edit an article, and later start editing: otherwise you will leave a trail of article to be edited.--Panarjedde 12:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ ~

Basiliscus