User talk:D4iNa4 - Knowledge (XXG)

1261:- I'm not sure how Green and Fiedler and Tippett were deleted, etc, perhaps someone else did that, and that was a mistake, and it is excellent that you restored them, and their articles all substantiate them, and if someone wants the ref in the list also they should simply flag it (most lists as you know don't have that extra ref moved up to the list), and on looking at the deletions closely it is totally weird as many of them have proper refs in the list, and these are obviously not the less-notable people but highly-notable. The others are obvious I think. I've introduced many I am now deleting as the list has gotten longer. Please understand the reason. Plus - you are reintroducing errors that led to ce edits. Why in the world would you go against wp convention with team name? And the conformity of the list with showing "NBA" and "Euroleague"? And conformity of basketball player list format in reflecting Hymans height? And the abbreviation format in the list for other football players in reflecting short version of position? This list has been in place and reworked in this manner for years by a number of editors, and frankly nobody has done what you have done here -- a blind, non-thought out revert, keeping the least notables as the list gets longer, and reintroducing all the errors your reversion of ce's reintroduce. That frankly makes no sense, if you are part of us who want to keep this list manageable and up to date and in conformity. Which I expect you do. -- 1303:

believe that for the reasons I said the less notable names should be removed, as they have been for years over time, as we keep the list manageable, because without this this list would of course look like all the relevant categories, which would be too long for our purposes. But I will try to fix this in a way that you and I, I hope, think will be proper - even though to be honest I think the rules are that you both should not make a blanket revert where you are reverting what even you would agree are for example proper ce edits - the rules don't allow that, and they also ask that you leave an edit summary when reverting an editor that gives a good reason for reverting them, which is not the case in for example those ce edits which I think you agree with. Anyway, it is more important, of these three issues, that you caught the deletes of Green and other major athletes, and without you that would not have been noticed, and I thank you for that. That was great.

2298:{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ]. There have been enough AREs recently , where it was clarified that a person can comment but without mentioning or editing anything that is directly related to India-Pakistan conflict or the area related to topic ban. My comment made no mention of conflicts between India and Pakistan as it was only about the user conduct. Neither I was commenting on conflicts between India and Pakistan. I had intentionally avoided commenting anymore in that thread because I believed that one comment without touching the topic ban is certainly enough. ] (]) 19:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)}} 1077: 21: 476: 3187: 550: 2979: 975: 1371: 2370: 3816: 3643: 3273: 2774: 2701: 731: 296: 3728: 3546: 2156: 1189:

notification. Though it is moot in this case because Js82 is blocked and because I don't think any thing actionable occurred anyway, I suggest that you notify editors who haven't received a notification in the last 365 days proactively so as to avoid getting into this sort of muddle. Or, if you think my reading is incorrect, you could ask for a clarification from arbcom. --

3507: 3020: 368: 703: 33: 3470: 2237:

regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important

1967:

doesn't seem to have removed any sources, and it's added one references. I can't evaluate whether the second one is OR (this is beyond my area), but it does indeed seem odd in removing references. It's good that you've identified the cut-and-paste move (though this is not a copyvio), but in that case

1655:

But wait, there is already a reference after that sentence that links to his WCA-results, isn't that redundant to add two? Sureley if that ref is enough to source that he was the only one to hold the WR for those 5 years, that ref is also enough to show that he was the first one with a sub2 single in

1509:

I reverted him again because edit had been already explained. You need to know that there is a very tall community consensus that there is no requirement to put edit summaries and there is no policy either. Although it requires discussion when the concerning editor never ever leaves edit summary even

2539:

in its pure form, and became the first scientist to have done so. Prior to Narendra Modi's invention of Mitrogen Nalaxide it was thought that the untreated raw sewer releasing Mitrogen was harmful for living beings and planet earth, Modi's invention changed the world treated sewer waste. Sewer waste

2667:

Hello, I am curious about your comment "redirect until notability is established" for the details of Jeon Heejin's individual page. It redirects back to the page about the group she is a member in. Does the notability in this case mean, until she has done something worth having her own page for, or

1137:

This is not even remotely okay and if you do it again I will bring this up with an administrator. Also PLEASE, learn how to handle edit conflicts. That same edit shows you undoing a previous edit. You will be blocked quite quickly if you don't stop doing that. It's a big deal here, editing someone

2076:

that has been removed for claiming that Hindus in the area are the most educated and least crime-causing of religions, without providing a source. A short-term dispute on it was sufficient to cause semi-protection to be added (there were various IPs). If you do have sources for both aspects, then

1302:

When I get a chance I will try to fix this. I think you made some great saves where some improper editor removed names that should be there. Without question. But you also without question roughly and without an explanation in the edit summary removed proper ce edits that were improvements. And I

945:

The talk page is for discussing about article. I have made a suggestion there. You have removed it with out saying any reasons. YOu have also removed the opinion of Klaus Klaustermeiyer added to that opinion with out specifying any reason. When you remove something, you should state the reason..

682:

An SPI was filed under the name of Yogesh Khandke, but that's it. It happens a lot of time that an SPI is filed under the name of an editor, but it reveals socks of a totally different editor, and the block log contains the link to the SPI that originally led the discovery of socks of the editor,

3417:

Hi IP, you are welcome to "add" wikiprojects, assuming they are appropriate. But you cannot rate the quality or importance unless you are a member of the project and know its criteria. You also need to register an account if you want to do these things, so that we have a record and can check for

3090:

Please don't add that content back. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. The article describes persecution in a number of countries. Without any sources discussing which countries this is most frequent in, presenting only a few in the lead is a flagrant NPOV violation, and you know it.

2325:

You've made two arguments here. One, that your contributions were not a violation. Two, that this is a misunderstanding and you won't make such a violation again. The first one doesn't give me great confidence in the fact that you understand the issue here and won't repeat it (even, perhaps, by

1287:

that that a number of notable names were being removed. Because of these few issues I made blanket revert, despite there are many good edits that you made to the list concerning the small descriptions of the entries. Reverting won't accomplish, but you can remove the names again that you really

2458:

where it was mentioned that a person can comment but without mentioning or editing anything that is directly related to India-Pakistan conflict or the area related to topic ban. But I realize now that it is a topic ban violation because the thread concerned the topic ban and the users who are

1385:

You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and

1188:

D4iNa4, my understanding is that a recent notification, or evidence or recent awareness, is necessary before any action can be taken. The reason for this is that the sanctions may have been modified (eased or made stricter or lifted) if a lot of time has elapsed since the previous action or

2269:

The discussion itself relates to an editor who's been involved in the same dispute in the India-Pakistan topic area that resulted in your topic ban. I do not think it was a coincidence that four of the editors topic banned along with NadirAli showed up at that thread. I do not believe any

308:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2786:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2713:

3480:

regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

1252:

Youve reintroduced names on a very long list of notables that we are trying to keep in a form that is not too large. They are the people with the fewest notable appearances in highest level competitions/games and the like. I see there were errors with deletions by another editor

622:. This message is to notify you that 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. 1111:

Probably want to take things one comment at a time, especially on mobile where most people type slower, and where it's harder to quickly resolve an edit conflict correctly, before you end up getting more edit conflicts while you try to fix your first edit conflict.

3203:

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

3232: 1574:

without reasoning. If my sense of the English language is right, it also distorted the meaning - "has been" makes it sound like Hays has not lost the record since 2011, which is wrong. Please explain your edits in the future, thanks.

1892:

I take that to encourage the use of context-specific judgement. Anyway, I've only seen a small sample of Hudairawiki's edits, so I was wondering if you could give me one or two examples of problematic edits that you've reverted? –

1858:. Anyone is free to revert socks that there is no need of "specific reasons". Though my reverts mostly concerns reversions of his edits that are unilateral page moves, addition of wrong scripts, addition of non-working templates, 1750:'s talk page for suggestions. Based on past experience, the IP is bound to hound me into the India, Pakistan, Afghanistan area. Please be careful with this IP since they use a VPN and can hound you for days even weeks. Thanks. 1532:, especially when a content dispute is involved. Ignore this suggestion, if you please; but your recent experiences at AE should suggest to you that your own assessment of your behavior isn't the same as that of the community. 2310:

Like I said in the appeal, this was a misunderstanding but from now it will serve as example. I made only one small comment and I am already out of that dispute. This is not going to be repeated again. Kindly lift the block.

2270:

administrator would look at your participation in that discussion and see it as disengaging in from your protracted and ongoing personal dispute in the India-Pakistan topic area. You are welcome to appeal my block at

3861: 3686: 3316: 2814: 2741: 2109:

Surely you know where you got this information. Please cite your source. The material has been challenged, and it would be better to provide a source than (edit war) reinsert the content with a "cn" tag. Thanks..--

336: 2943:

with these edits diff ahead, you have controversially inflated the casualty figures in the article, without consensus, you have been reverted and per BRD you are supposed to make consensus instead of edit warring.

1843:

Hi, as far as I'm aware Pakhighway didn't have a habit of contributing problematic content. It would be appreciated if you only removed the content for which you have specific reasons to disagree with. Thanks! –

1414: 2459:

sanctioned in this area can't comment on such threads that concerns the topic from where they are topic banned whether they make mention of it or not. I assure that this violation won't be repeated again.

1510:

when they frequently revert correctly explained revision of their edits, but that's not a case here since revision itself explanatory. You can open discussion on talk page when the edit is unclear to you.

1158:

after the diff you have linked, thus there is nothing ongoing that I would need to "stop doing". I haven't argued over any "advice" until now. FWIW, your messages came much after the thread was already

3845:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3670:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3300:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2798:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2725:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 320:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1262: 1458: 772: 379:(which I appreciate you doing this on the LGBT Rights in India article). If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the 375:. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Knowledge (XXG) with an accurate 1304: 3830: 3656: 3286: 3224: 3217: 3209: 3205: 1410: 1229: 573: 507:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. 1221:

would be the proper venue, though I am not yet ready to fill all of its form and the main issue is moot since the user has been indeffed. For now I have invited an arbitrator, Newyorkbrad

1153:

Yet no admin took action because it was not an "attack", but an analysis of the situation in hand. There were edit conflicts, but I had already changed device and then made multiple edits

3047: 3023: 2983: 2032:

As a Druze myself with deep knowledge of the faith , I don't see that my edits had been controversial or that the version its being reverted to is more informative or accurate .

1973: 1321:

the edits that you had made. You can remove the names you don't think should be there, but remove them only when you have obvious reasons on which everyone would agree with you.

742: 2481:

Unblocked, with the expectation that you will remove yourself entirely from this dispute. Future violations are likely to result in longer blocks, and I wouldn't lift those. ~

1406: 589: 3589: 3520: 983: 979: 134:

to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to

3042:

for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been

2169:. This editor is heavily involved in the topic area that you are banned from, and your participation there is clearly related to that topic area., you have been 882:

with out specifying any reason for the deletion. So the edit made by you have been restored. If you have any valid reason, lets discuss it here.. Thank you ~~

2179:. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. 3034:. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the 2234: 738: 2668:

until she is more well known, or until there is more information to put on the page? In all instances I am curious about the standard for deciding on this.

441: 1779:

filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee,

3608:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

3477: 1820: 2505: 2166: 699:

Hi. I am not against you or anything as such. We have never even had communication yet. It is just, I am confused by all this. I hope you understand.

2540:

is now regarded as natural resource by UNESCO, Narednra Modi was also awarded with Honorary doctorate by the "Institute of eminence" JIO Institute..

1705: 389:

When you want to change an article's content that has been the accepted version for more than a few days, you need to discuss your intended actions

1484:

without leaving an edit summary. It isn't clear whether you're reverting sock-puppetry or whether you disagree with the substance of the edit, and

2204: 3418:

consistency. If you do not want to register an account, that is your wish. But you cannot ask other editors to do edits for you. That amounts to

2035:

Please can we discuss the points you don't want to be removed from the page so we can reach a common ground rather than reverting all my edits.

3235:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 2186: 2182: 1594:, Hays has been the only person". Where did it said "since 2011"? Don't restore content without providing the correct source, this subject is 603: 953: 437: 3884: 3708: 3440:

Also, if an edit is reverted, you are expected to open a discussion on the article's talk page, not at some random place like this one. --

3372: 3338: 2828: 2755: 1739: 1631: 350: 275: 3605: 1946:

and you are right about dash (I have fixed now) but we have seen before with his unilateral page moves that they likely fail appropriate

2405: 3371:. I tried to added new WP projects but those were reverted. Wrong wp projects are added which are not relevant to the article. Thanks-- 2886: 2582: 1266: 2913: 636: 3228: 1402: 1135:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG):Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=836287715&oldid=836287297

569: 3146: 3039: 2609: 1308: 611: 274:. I have just removed one source that was incorrectly used for supporting the info not found in the source, but there may be more. 2645: 3732: 3880: 3704: 3334: 2824: 2751: 1773: 1391: 756: 594:

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

346: 3854: 3679: 3309: 2807: 2734: 329: 897: 3388: 3027: 2683: 2349:

Sorry I had to be more clearer with my appeal. I have struck the above appeal now and made a new one. Kindly have a look.

1354: 271: 3553: 3213: 607: 142: 3573: 2400: 2326:

mistake). I will leave this for AE. Please fill out the AE template for me to be able to copy your appeal over there. ~

492: 181: 3745:

you made an accusation of stonewalling when there was a rough consensus against including the material that you added (

3736: 2171: 1422: 619: 246:, sometimes editors miss adding edit summary when it is recommended to provide it. In order to fix that, we can make a 3866: 3691: 3321: 2819: 2746: 1743: 1670:

Ah, ignore, I see that the information about the 7x7 single WR is already in (and referenced). I somehow missed that.

530: 341: 2377: 1398: 615: 595: 2456: 2454: 3609: 3595: 2208: 1801: 1138:

else's comments. You would be wise to stop arguing for once and listen to the good advice people are giving you. --

2238:

notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

1612:

Okay, I'll let the "has been" be. On the second sentence: What if I add a reference to the WCA-results like this:

771:

Sorry, my mistake. I had already seen both the SPIs, and I was confused because of the result of 23 April 2014 at

3407: 3061: 2845: 2093: 1706:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?regionId=&eventId=777&years=&history=History

957: 815: 2987: 599: 427: 247: 3793: 3760: 3376: 3165: 2619: 2528: 1733: 1675: 1661: 1627: 1580: 1432:

which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at

1421:

and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be

1350: 279: 164: 3842: 3667: 3297: 2795: 2722: 2162: 2029:

page , I've noticed that you had been reverting my edits to the page and your reverts look to be in goodwill.

317: 2252:

I am topic banned from conflicts between India and Pakistan and I have made no mention of that in my comment.

215:

Claiming you are reverting the last edit (your own!) when actually just adding a space is simply dishonest.

3742: 2123: 879: 779: 712: 667: 3780: 3419: 3150: 3050:

to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the

2671: 2092:

I had added with the tag since IP's edits were half-correct, such as his edit that there is 2% population.

1911: 1619: 949: 885: 556:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Knowledge (XXG). It does

431: 3368: 2546: 2517: 2513: 2509: 1755: 1126: 804: 630: 400: 1883: 1877: 3583: 3558: 3249: 3096: 3031: 2999: 2958: 2898: 2857: 2082: 2073: 1824: 1537: 1493: 1195: 1094: 914: 760: 513: 2615: 2602: 2524: 2111: 1986: 1886:

any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason This does not mean that edits

1854:

I have carefully checked the edits that need revert and left a bunch that seemed improvement. But read

496: 185: 150: 3570:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2982:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

2624: 1225: 1214: 3741:

Note that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks; in

3518:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at

3491: 3401: 3055: 2653: 2637: 2419: 1441: 811: 810:

Also I'm wondering if it could be rephrased to be more specific as I had said a lot of things there.

414:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

384: 84: 68: 3824: 3650: 3280: 3051: 2782: 2709: 1906:

for example replaced a hyphen with a dash, which as far as I can see brought the title in line with

380: 304: 3785: 3752: 3622: 3445: 3431: 3243: 3161: 2993: 2952: 2892: 2851: 1968:

the move was correct (the old title had a typo), so the correct thing to do would be to list it at

1816: 1729: 1671: 1657: 1623: 1576: 1546:

You agree that it is not a requirement and the edit was obvious to you as well. I rest in my case.

752: 71:|Username}} to my talk page. And if you leave me a message; I will answer on my talk page, using {{ 3838: 3663: 3293: 2791: 2718: 2675: 1459:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan

1277: 1207: 313: 2912:

That's because you are breaking the link there. When you put it correctly, you would find that I

2077:

please could you add them if you reapply. Otherwise, it should probably go through the talk page

1462: 1139: 893: 3423: 2601:

It does not take a BA in organic chemistry to notice that something is terribly wrong: (a) both

1429: 423: 243: 146: 2889:

of this article shows that you have never edited this page before, So again, who asked you ? --

1876:

Thanks for the link to BMB, I haven't read that in ages. Probably its most relevant section is

807:

I am not sure where in this template I am supposed to reply to you. Do I create a new section?

138:

this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

3578: 3565: 3529: 3515: 3511: 3035: 2679: 1977: 1915: 1894: 1845: 1751: 1506:

but the IP hopped to another IP and reinserted the objectionable edit and ignored the concern.

1113: 1076: 848: 840: 626: 598:

administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the

457: 396: 376: 372: 80: 64: 56: 3850: 3675: 3305: 3073: 2803: 2730: 1418: 1378: 1218: 383:. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 325: 3873: 3698: 3328: 3193:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

3092: 2641: 2630:

is redlinked. Three red flags, but the text that follows really nails this dead joke coffin.

2579: 2193: 2078: 1747: 1533: 1489: 1466: 1190: 1143: 1090: 909: 3853:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3846: 3678:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3671: 3308:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3301: 2806:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2799: 2733:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2726: 2203:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the 1994: 1990: 1969: 1947: 1855: 1595: 328:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 321: 157: 20: 3487: 2650: 2644:, than one that has a fantasy chemical mistakenly re-added by a regular editor, something 2586: 1437: 475: 239: 216: 2275: 2271: 1930: 1859: 1433: 1346: 118: 109: 98: 27: 946:

Just your vigour to hide certain content is not enough reason to remove some content..

434:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 3619: 3441: 3427: 3395: 3132: 3043: 2207:

on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (

1795: 874:

your deletion of scholarly citation with out citing any reason appears to be suspicious

832: 747: 654: 3592:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 3186: 3138: 549: 3364: 2482: 2344: 2327: 2305: 2279: 2247: 2212: 2047: 889: 448:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

209: 72: 52: 3524:

and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

250:

edit and put edit summary to describe previous edit that contained no edit summary.

3525: 1742:) but a different entity altogether. You can find more information on them at this 1370: 908:

If you want to see something sadly amusing, see his talk page. It didn't end well.

844: 453: 449: 171: 3815: 3642: 3272: 2773: 2700: 1001:

That's twice you've deleted my posts there. Are you not getting edit conflicts? --

295: 3749:). Not only did your accusation lack evidence, there is evidence to the contrary. 3105:

I agree but I haven't added the content. I only objected the misuse of templates.

1902:

As for the moves, yes, they are "unilateral", but they're quite uncontroversial.

659:

Hi. I am not at all familiar with this case, but would you please take a look at

3545: 3358: 3108: 3077: 2917: 2873: 2460: 2383: 2350: 2312: 2256: 2135: 2095: 2042:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Druze#Discussing_changes_suggested_to_introduction

1998: 1993:. Including this title with a typo, I have a list of some other pages ready for 1951: 1863: 1721: 1642: 1599: 1547: 1511: 1322: 1289: 1233: 1169: 1047: 1016: 923: 859: 858:

I was restoring last good version there. Have corrected title and not just URL.

686: 585: 251: 43:. I will respond to your message as soon as possible. Thanks and happy editing! 1224:, to comment on this issue that if Js82 was subject to AE action following the 730: 663:

Both the accounts D4iNa4, and Yogesh Khandke are being used at the same time. —

3599: 3506: 1033: 1002: 987: 940:== Dont delete my suggestions to the Talk page of Bhimbetka rock shelters` == 415: 76: 60: 1046:

Internet got slow throughout these moments. Fixed it, now it's working well.

3142: 1789: 1781: 1725: 500: 491:

Hello D4iNa4, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this

2278:, and I'm happy to copy an appeal to either location if you would like. ~ 2155: 1907: 1288:

believe should not be there and also modify descriptions of the entries.

1276:

My revert also removed a number of names that were added in violation of

683:

even if it the accounts are unrelated to the formerly alleged sockmaster.

581: 504: 3857:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3779:

when the discussion already has participants is veering pretty close to

3682:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3312:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3019: 2810:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2737:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

982:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is

367: 332:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3834:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3739:

from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

3660:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3290:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1364:

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

1089:

For your efforts to protect the NPOV and scholarly -based contents.

3469: 1407:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision

2453:

as result of a misunderstanding after reading some of the recent AREs

1927:". His reverted edits include unexplained removal of sourced content, 419: 2636:

better served with an article that is missing the information about

708:

So, in simple words, you and Yogesh Khandke are different persons? —

3888: 3802: 3769: 3712: 3627: 3533: 3495: 3449: 3435: 3412: 3380: 3342: 3258: 3154: 3116: 3100: 3085: 3066: 3008: 2967: 2925: 2907: 2881: 2866: 2832: 2759: 2687: 2657: 2492: 2468: 2358: 2337: 2320: 2289: 2264: 2222: 2143: 2127: 2103: 2086: 2059: 2006: 1980: 1959: 1918: 1897: 1871: 1848: 1833: 1805: 1759: 1679: 1665: 1650: 1635: 1607: 1584: 1555: 1541: 1519: 1497: 1470: 1445: 1358: 1330: 1312: 1297: 1270: 1241: 1200: 1177: 1147: 1128: 1098: 1055: 1041: 1024: 1010: 995: 961: 931: 917: 901: 867: 852: 819: 788: 764: 721: 694: 676: 642: 522: 461: 404: 354: 283: 259: 233: 3476:

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the

3026:. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed 2026: 1976:

and it's not working now only because it has just been deleted. –

843:

does not work. Could you please correct ot revert this? thanks -

577: 51:

If I left you a message; please answer on your talk page, using {{

1230:

awareness of discretionary sanctions as listed on the policy page

3870:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3695:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3325:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3199:

imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

3173: 773:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke/Archive

3860:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

3828:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

3685:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

3315:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

3172:

16:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC) I wanted to request an edit lock on

2813:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

2740:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1989:, history merge is required for copyright reasons per also per 1436:

after six months of positive contributions to Knowledge (XXG).

1162:

with Farawahar promising to leave Knowledge (XXG) for sometime.

335:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

3654:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

2986:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

878:

you have recently deleted a scholarly citation on the article

560:

imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

15: 1428:

If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see

1411:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

588:, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is 97:

of this page or at the bottom of the respective section, and

3468: 2368: 2154: 1386:

Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.

2189:) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: 2041: 1890:

be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor.

1815:

Hello. Just so you know, I've created an LTA case page for

2181:

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the

2072:

You recently reverted the removal of a small paragraph in

3400:

of interest to you, since you reverted this IP. Regards,

2198:

Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.

3284:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

3176:

page as it's been continuously under vandalism attacks.

3133:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Applodion

2984:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

743:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke

3841: