L.R. Wormwood (talk | contribs) |
You have been blocked from editing. (TW) |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::::Obviously when I wrote "certain exceptions", I meant that you can get away with violating the rule in those cases. I'll have a look at your changes. [[User:L.R. Wormwood|L.R. Wormwood]] ([[User talk:L.R. Wormwood|talk]]) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
::::Obviously when I wrote "certain exceptions", I meant that you can get away with violating the rule in those cases. I'll have a look at your changes. [[User:L.R. Wormwood|L.R. Wormwood]] ([[User talk:L.R. Wormwood|talk]]) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::I can't make the changes, actually, because I have already used my 1RR today. It's best to take it to the talk first anyway, since it will likely be removed within hours of it being restored. [[User:L.R. Wormwood|L.R. Wormwood]] ([[User talk:L.R. Wormwood|talk]]) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
::::I can't make the changes, actually, because I have already used my 1RR today. It's best to take it to the talk first anyway, since it will likely be removed within hours of it being restored. [[User:L.R. Wormwood|L.R. Wormwood]] ([[User talk:L.R. Wormwood|talk]]) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
== April 2017 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for general non-neutral editing and BLP violations in an area covered by [[WP:GS/ISIL|general sanctions]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|request an unblock]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 17:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
Revision as of 17:13, 16 April 2017
Note
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)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Hatla chemical attack for deletion
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)
April 2017
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)
- Eh? I would argue quite the opposite and your warning is evidence of POV-pushing and such. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 15
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.
- Sarmin chemical attack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to White Helmets
- White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to White Helmets
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)
1RR rule
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)
- No problem, have done. Thanks for highlighting this. I assumed after creating an article on Shajul Islam that it would not qualify under 1RR as a breach. Would you be so kind to explain where I am going wrong? Thanks. RaRaRasputin (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's an 1RR breach regardless of the changes. There are certain exceptions, such as obvious vandalism or the enforcement of overriding WP policies, but even then it's still an 1RR breach and people may challenge it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see. That is clear. Thanks. Perhaps you would be so kind to replace the text for me? In whatever position or manner you see fit, I would be even more grateful. If it is not in your interests however, don't worry. :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously when I wrote "certain exceptions", I meant that you can get away with violating the rule in those cases. I'll have a look at your changes. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I can't make the changes, actually, because I have already used my 1RR today. It's best to take it to the talk first anyway, since it will likely be removed within hours of it being restored. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see. That is clear. Thanks. Perhaps you would be so kind to replace the text for me? In whatever position or manner you see fit, I would be even more grateful. If it is not in your interests however, don't worry. :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's an 1RR breach regardless of the changes. There are certain exceptions, such as obvious vandalism or the enforcement of overriding WP policies, but even then it's still an 1RR breach and people may challenge it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. NeilN talk to me 17:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)