User talk:Paeancrime

Edward Guiliano

The criteria for WP:A7 is significance not notability. There is a claim of significance in the article. WP:A1 means you can not tell what the article is about. I know exactly who this article is about from the information in the article. So WP:A1 does not apply. Do not restore those speedy deletion nominations. If you feel the article should be deleted, follow the directions at WP:AFD. GB fan 01:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is mad and not notable--that is why no reference. He's president of a third class college. Must be deleted--Paeancrime (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. GB fan 01:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's right you know, this is proper procedure. And no, I am not a sock puppet. Who has a sock puppet with 53,000 edits (GB fan) or 2,800 edits (me)? And STOP THORWING PERSONAL ATTACKS at me like you did numerous times on my talk page. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Edward Guiliano. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks

accusing me the sock of a banned user is a personal attacks. Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Up until this point I have put up with your attacks but they will stop. If you feel I am a sock puppet of a banned user you must present your evidence at WP:SPI. If you are not going to do that you must retract your accusations. GB fan 01:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Edward Guiliano has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Edward Guiliano was changed by Paeancrime (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.854282 on 2014-05-13T01:59:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack by User:Paeancrime. Thank you. GB fan 02:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Edward Guiliano shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. 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. GB fan 02:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Edward Guiliano shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. 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. Dudel250 (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dudel250 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Dudel250 (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Paeancrime reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: ). Thank you. Dudel250 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Edward Guiliano. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bishonen | talk 09:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And due to your sockpuppeting to evade your block, your block has been extended to indefinite. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]