Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
-- NeilN talk to me 15:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hatla chemical attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatla chemical attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis ( talk) 15:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Articles for deletion/Hatla chemical attack, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You must not edit a Afd that has been closed. This is clearly stated on the page. Thank you
Domdeparis (
talk)
17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be
blocked from editing.
VQuakr (
talk)
19:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. A quick review of your edits gives the clear impression that you are making no attempt to edit within the requirements of
WP:NPOV and exercise the due care required by the letter and spirit of
general sanctions on this subject area.
VQuakr (
talk)
00:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have breached the 1RR rule with your edits here and here. You will need to undo this. L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 16:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me
17:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)RaRaRasputin ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have no idea what I have been blocked for. Please would you be so kind to provide evidence in order that I may either be unblocked or correct alleged non-neutral editing and BLP violations in future? Thanks! :)
Decline reason:
I have pointed out some of the BLP issues here. Huon ( talk) 19:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
The edits which actually caused this block were the ones that created this atrocious WP:BLP: [1] If you still wish to appeal, I will copy your appeal to the appropriate noticeboard and recommend you be given a longer topic ban. -- NeilN talk to me 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
As you have again violated the BLP policy and engaged in incivil commentary in your most recent comment you are now subject to the following sanction for six months:
Topic ban from making any edit about the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, both broadly construed.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community authorised general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This sanction has been recorded in the log. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction on the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page) in no less than three months, however you may ask for clarification of the scope of this ban. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.
Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Your topic ban from making any edit about the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, both broadly construed, includes this page. -- NeilN talk to me 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
irrelevant discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
RASPUTIN. WHY? I am the daughter of Grigory Efimovich Rasputin. I was baptized by Matryona, my family called me Maria. Father - Marochka. Now I'm 48 years old. Almost as much as his father, When he was taken from the house by a terrible man - Felix Yusupov. I remember everything and never tried to forget anything. From what was happening to me or my family (No matter how foes count on it). I do not cling to memories, as do those, Who are inclined to savor their misfortunes. I just live by them. I really love my father. As much as others hate it. I can not force others to love him. I do not aspire to this, as my father did not aspire. Like him, I want only understanding. But, I'm afraid - and this is excessive, when We are talking about Rasputin. In her memoirs [8] that you might like. Matryona had daughters. Beware. There are Rasputins out there! Anyhow, where do you live? Perhaps I could call over and cook you Stroganoff or Coulibiac. We could discuss all those chemical weapons edits that I can't make until this ban is over? RaRaRasputin ( talk) 16:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|
I suggest to close this discussion as irrelevant. Beware, your comments and edits so far qualify as WP:Not here. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
20:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)RaRaRasputin ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
First, no-one has informed me of any decent reason for the topic ban, so it isn't valid. Secondly, I wasn't canvassing support, merely referring to a pint of beer that I owed Erlbaeko after a bet I lost with him over a football game in February 2015, I just wanted to know when I could pay him back the beer that I owed him! Honest guvnor!
Decline reason:
What Beeblebrox said. I've changed your block to indefinite for your added WP:GAMING + WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. I suggest no one unblocks until RaRaRasputin explains why he was topic banned in his own words and cuts out the "what, me?" act. NeilN talk to me 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
I fixed that for you, but would suggest that insulting the intelligence of your fellow Wikipedians with transparent lies is probably not the best way to get anyone to seriously consider an unblock. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
More nonsense. Talk page access revoked. -- NeilN talk to me 21:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hatla airstrike is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatla airstrike until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis ( talk) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
-- NeilN talk to me 15:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hatla chemical attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatla chemical attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis ( talk) 15:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Articles for deletion/Hatla chemical attack, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You must not edit a Afd that has been closed. This is clearly stated on the page. Thank you
Domdeparis (
talk)
17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be
blocked from editing.
VQuakr (
talk)
19:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. A quick review of your edits gives the clear impression that you are making no attempt to edit within the requirements of
WP:NPOV and exercise the due care required by the letter and spirit of
general sanctions on this subject area.
VQuakr (
talk)
00:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have breached the 1RR rule with your edits here and here. You will need to undo this. L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 16:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me
17:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)RaRaRasputin ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have no idea what I have been blocked for. Please would you be so kind to provide evidence in order that I may either be unblocked or correct alleged non-neutral editing and BLP violations in future? Thanks! :)
Decline reason:
I have pointed out some of the BLP issues here. Huon ( talk) 19:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
The edits which actually caused this block were the ones that created this atrocious WP:BLP: [1] If you still wish to appeal, I will copy your appeal to the appropriate noticeboard and recommend you be given a longer topic ban. -- NeilN talk to me 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
As you have again violated the BLP policy and engaged in incivil commentary in your most recent comment you are now subject to the following sanction for six months:
Topic ban from making any edit about the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, both broadly construed.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community authorised general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This sanction has been recorded in the log. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction on the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page) in no less than three months, however you may ask for clarification of the scope of this ban. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.
Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Your topic ban from making any edit about the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, both broadly construed, includes this page. -- NeilN talk to me 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
irrelevant discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
RASPUTIN. WHY? I am the daughter of Grigory Efimovich Rasputin. I was baptized by Matryona, my family called me Maria. Father - Marochka. Now I'm 48 years old. Almost as much as his father, When he was taken from the house by a terrible man - Felix Yusupov. I remember everything and never tried to forget anything. From what was happening to me or my family (No matter how foes count on it). I do not cling to memories, as do those, Who are inclined to savor their misfortunes. I just live by them. I really love my father. As much as others hate it. I can not force others to love him. I do not aspire to this, as my father did not aspire. Like him, I want only understanding. But, I'm afraid - and this is excessive, when We are talking about Rasputin. In her memoirs [8] that you might like. Matryona had daughters. Beware. There are Rasputins out there! Anyhow, where do you live? Perhaps I could call over and cook you Stroganoff or Coulibiac. We could discuss all those chemical weapons edits that I can't make until this ban is over? RaRaRasputin ( talk) 16:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|
I suggest to close this discussion as irrelevant. Beware, your comments and edits so far qualify as WP:Not here. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
20:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)RaRaRasputin ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
First, no-one has informed me of any decent reason for the topic ban, so it isn't valid. Secondly, I wasn't canvassing support, merely referring to a pint of beer that I owed Erlbaeko after a bet I lost with him over a football game in February 2015, I just wanted to know when I could pay him back the beer that I owed him! Honest guvnor!
Decline reason:
What Beeblebrox said. I've changed your block to indefinite for your added WP:GAMING + WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. I suggest no one unblocks until RaRaRasputin explains why he was topic banned in his own words and cuts out the "what, me?" act. NeilN talk to me 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
I fixed that for you, but would suggest that insulting the intelligence of your fellow Wikipedians with transparent lies is probably not the best way to get anyone to seriously consider an unblock. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
More nonsense. Talk page access revoked. -- NeilN talk to me 21:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hatla airstrike is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatla airstrike until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis ( talk) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)