The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.JimRenge ( talk) 18:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You recently disapproved changes I made to the Freespee page. May I ask what was the reason of this?
Thanks,
Alex Ahadzhiyska ( talk) 18:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- You had removed all of the categories and added some of your views. Delibzr ( talk) 03:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The copyright violations are only in the historical versions and just need to be cleaned up. The current version is fine and will not be deleted if that was your reason for removing the template. I've restored the template which should only be removed by an administrator. Best. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 17:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, and sorry for the very very slow reply to your email! About those templates, you can see the criteria for deletion at WP:TFD#REASONS. If any of those templates satisfy any of the reasons, go ahead and nominate them. (If you're feeling polite, it might be an idea to give people a few days' warning on the template talk pages as well.) Any advice that I give you will be redundant to a deletion discussion, so I'm not going to bother with specifics. It would be much easier just to check that they satisfy one of the deletion criteria and then nominate them for deletion yourself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BeenAroundAWhile. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Bhutan, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. "The First
Five Year Plan provided for a central education authority—in the form of a director of education appointed in 1961—and an organized, modern school system with free and universal primary education" did not have a source.
BeenAroundAWhile (
talk) 05:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You have not adequately described your changes in this article [1]. I recommend taking it up in the talk page. Also, do not revert 3 times within 24 hours, as to adhere to the 3 revert rule. Xtremedood ( talk) 02:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are violating BLPs, that means you can be reverted many more times.
Delibzr (
talk) 02:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- You have been reported on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. [2]. Xtremedood ( talk) 03:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Shortly before he was blocked, User:Xtremedood made a series of massive changes to List of converts to Hinduism from Islam without prior discussion, at least some of which I find debatable, stripping the article down to a list of seven converts from a previous twenty-two. As you seem to have more knowledge than I regarding the particulars of Hindu-Muslim related topics (I am not actually South Asian myself), perhaps you could take a closer look and double-check whether his edits were warranted? Gorgevito ( talk) 22:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute involving you here [3]. Xtremedood ( talk) 09:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.JimRenge ( talk) 18:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You recently disapproved changes I made to the Freespee page. May I ask what was the reason of this?
Thanks,
Alex Ahadzhiyska ( talk) 18:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- You had removed all of the categories and added some of your views. Delibzr ( talk) 03:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The copyright violations are only in the historical versions and just need to be cleaned up. The current version is fine and will not be deleted if that was your reason for removing the template. I've restored the template which should only be removed by an administrator. Best. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 17:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, and sorry for the very very slow reply to your email! About those templates, you can see the criteria for deletion at WP:TFD#REASONS. If any of those templates satisfy any of the reasons, go ahead and nominate them. (If you're feeling polite, it might be an idea to give people a few days' warning on the template talk pages as well.) Any advice that I give you will be redundant to a deletion discussion, so I'm not going to bother with specifics. It would be much easier just to check that they satisfy one of the deletion criteria and then nominate them for deletion yourself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BeenAroundAWhile. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Bhutan, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. "The First
Five Year Plan provided for a central education authority—in the form of a director of education appointed in 1961—and an organized, modern school system with free and universal primary education" did not have a source.
BeenAroundAWhile (
talk) 05:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You have not adequately described your changes in this article [1]. I recommend taking it up in the talk page. Also, do not revert 3 times within 24 hours, as to adhere to the 3 revert rule. Xtremedood ( talk) 02:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are violating BLPs, that means you can be reverted many more times.
Delibzr (
talk) 02:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- You have been reported on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. [2]. Xtremedood ( talk) 03:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Shortly before he was blocked, User:Xtremedood made a series of massive changes to List of converts to Hinduism from Islam without prior discussion, at least some of which I find debatable, stripping the article down to a list of seven converts from a previous twenty-two. As you seem to have more knowledge than I regarding the particulars of Hindu-Muslim related topics (I am not actually South Asian myself), perhaps you could take a closer look and double-check whether his edits were warranted? Gorgevito ( talk) 22:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute involving you here [3]. Xtremedood ( talk) 09:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)