User talk:Pythagoras

I have reverted First Amendment to the United States Constitution back to the compromise version posted by DESiegel at 16:56, Feb 24, 2005. I have placed a discussion regarding the differing views regarding the content that should appear on this page on the article's talk page. Please view this page and the discussion there prior to making any substantive changes to this page. I am attempting to resolve this dispute with DESiegel's compromise version, and hopefully avoid formal dispute resolution (ie. page protection, mediation, arbitration, etc.). (sent to all users editing the article since Feb 10, 2005: user_talk:DESiegel, user_talk:Pythagoras, user_talk:Kenj0418, user_talk:66.169.84.88, user_talk:68.209.177.180, user_talk:205.210.232.62) Kenj0418 07:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not continue to insist on inserting the test of the "virtual first admendment" into the primary article on the First admendment to the US constitution. This is an opnion held by some comentators, not a consensus, and there is no single authoritative text of the "virtual admendment" even among those who subscribe to this theory. I added a section with a link to your text, clearly identified as to source. This seems to me a much more NPOV way to present this issue. I have also added this page to the request for comment list. 205.210.232.62 16:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Virtual first amendment

Pythagoras, please take a look at the talk page consensus regarding the "virtual first amendment" section that you continue to add to the First Amendment article. As you can see, there is an ascertainable consensus regarding the appropriateness of the section of text. Consensus is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, and months of debate have resulted in one in regard to this text. Please take a look at Virtual First Amendment, which is an entire article covering the idea, and note that the article is linked in the First Amendment article. Finally, note that there is also an external link to a website about the virtual first amendment theory in the First Amendment article here. I would recommend not adding the text back into the First Amendment article again. I will report it if you do. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - Jersyko·talk 01:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on May 25 2006 (UTC) to First Amendment to the United States Constitution

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 16:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block is likely to be doubled for every sock puppet. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FirstAmendment_Flowchart_Reduced.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FirstAmendment_Flowchart_Reduced.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 00:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pythagoras for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. NJGW (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

_Gb^T/c 17:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Flowchart2 Reduced.gif

The file File:Flowchart2 Reduced.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unclear use/purpose

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]