86.90.43.5 (talk) |
|||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
Hey there. I just looked up the 'no-go areas' article on wikipedia, found it awfully lacking, and looked at the talkpage. What I found was a clique of biased Wikipedians blocking the addition of (your) useful information and sources to the article, regardless of what arguments or information they were presented. Well, since I am of the opinion the articles you (and another person) intended to add are valuable and useful to improving the quality of the article, I wish to inform you the most persistent of them has, since then, left Wikipedia altogether. You can improve the article now. [[Special:Contributions/86.90.43.5|86.90.43.5]] ([[User talk:86.90.43.5|talk]]) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC) |
Hey there. I just looked up the 'no-go areas' article on wikipedia, found it awfully lacking, and looked at the talkpage. What I found was a clique of biased Wikipedians blocking the addition of (your) useful information and sources to the article, regardless of what arguments or information they were presented. Well, since I am of the opinion the articles you (and another person) intended to add are valuable and useful to improving the quality of the article, I wish to inform you the most persistent of them has, since then, left Wikipedia altogether. You can improve the article now. [[Special:Contributions/86.90.43.5|86.90.43.5]] ([[User talk:86.90.43.5|talk]]) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
== About risk of sanctions on articles like [[2015 San Bernardino attack]] == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|'''''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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|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 [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''one [[Help:Reverting|revert]] per twenty-four hours [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|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 [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|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. |
|||
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 16:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:05, 13 March 2016
Visa restrictions etc
Hi Xavier, the Ebola responses page is not intended to track things like visa restrictions, which are intended to protect the internal population of the country which imposes them. I think there must be hundreds of these in different countries by now.
It is intended to keep track of the manpower, medical expertise, and physical resources which are being directed into Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea in order to prevent the spread of the epidemic and to minimize the impact of the disease in West Africa. Robertpedley (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Robert, yes, thanks, I see you fixed it, appreciated!XavierItzm (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Charlie Hebdo
Knowing that WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, could you please explain to us why you keep publishing [1][2][3] a partial statement of a 14 year old without mentioning the opposing views published in the same article ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, many thanks for reaching out. The subtopic is "Muslim reactions", and the literal texts are direct quotes from the Newspaper of Record of France (according to Wikipedia). It is true that the article from the Newspaper of Record also contains other material; feel free to add as appropriate to other sections of the Charlie Hebdo massacre as appropriate.
Now, with regard to the article currently cited:
1. It is also cited on the French Wikipedia page, I.e., the French are Ok with it
2. It is from a blue-chip, gold-standard RS
3. It is consistent with material from other top-RS from France (also cited)
4. You keep deleting the whole thing. Please refrain from so doing. Thank you. 03:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV has nothing to do with the quality of the source and there's no mention of it in the French Wikipedia page. In essence, you still haven't answered my question. MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pardon, me, but where do you get that the French wikipedia does not reference the Le Monde article?.
Currently it is citation N. 214:
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/10/a-saint-denis-collegiens-et-lyceens-ne-sont-pas-tous-charlie_4553048_3224.html
https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attentat_contre_Charlie_Hebdo&oldid=110845330
Kindly stop denying the facts. XavierItzm (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)- The partial statement[4] of the 14 year old that you translated from French (Je n'ai aucune pitié pour lui) does not appear anywhere in the French wikipedia page. Once again, WP:NPOV has nothing to do with the quality of the source. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- The text cited reflects accurately the issues raised by Le Monde and the article is cited by the French Wikipedia. Kindly stop denying this fact.
Besides, who's stopping you from adding anything you feel appropriate? Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)- Apart from energy and time, nothing is stopping me from adding what I think is appropriate or correcting the words that you falsely attributed to a kid. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, that does sound like bad faith on your part. Here is what the kid said, according to Le Point, the second argest French magazine:
"Pourquoi ils continuent, madame, alors qu'on les avait déjà menacés ?"
The direct, grammatically correct translation is chilling. True, maybe the student's grammar is poor. That happens, especially in the banlieues. I'll give you that.
- Wow, that does sound like bad faith on your part. Here is what the kid said, according to Le Point, the second argest French magazine:
- Apart from energy and time, nothing is stopping me from adding what I think is appropriate or correcting the words that you falsely attributed to a kid. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The text cited reflects accurately the issues raised by Le Monde and the article is cited by the French Wikipedia. Kindly stop denying this fact.
- The partial statement[4] of the 14 year old that you translated from French (Je n'ai aucune pitié pour lui) does not appear anywhere in the French wikipedia page. Once again, WP:NPOV has nothing to do with the quality of the source. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pardon, me, but where do you get that the French wikipedia does not reference the Le Monde article?.
- WP:NPOV has nothing to do with the quality of the source and there's no mention of it in the French Wikipedia page. In essence, you still haven't answered my question. MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Brian Williams - Berlin Wall: last edit could use a look --
Hi, Xavier -- You might want to have another look at your last edit on the "Brian Williams -- Berlin Wall" section. It doesn't seem to be reading properly (or maybe I'm not understanding what's meant --) As follows: CBS wrote: "“I was at the Brandenburg Gate . . . " CBS was at the Brandenburg Gate?? And I may be missing something else, but the whole CBS addition seems mostly to restate the sentence above it. (You may have a reason for having added it I'm not getting --) Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks like there was a typo! Thank you very much for fixing it! XavierItzm (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" on the Brian Williams' talk page
Hi, XavierItzm -- Have you read the guideline Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (a.k.a. WP:WL)? There's a lot of it going on over at the Talk:Brian Williams page. Among other actions characteristic of WP:WL is "[m]isinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." I have yet to allude to Wikilawyering to defend attacks on my positions on Brian Williams' Talk, but I thought you might be interested in the article. Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Israel says what it says
Please can you remove Israel from the designations table at ISIL as per discussion here and earlier discussion here. There is a difference between saying that a group is law breaking and saying it is terrorist. There was also no reference given for Iraq. GregKaye 20:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the references, you raise awesome points! I'll edit the article. XavierItzm (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Brian Williams
Looks like not only do some not want it mentioned that the show's name has been changed but some don't want it mentioned that Williams wanted to replace Leno and Letterman. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- XavierItzm, there's a new, long article in Vanity Fair about Brian Williams, including liberal use of the "L-word." I thought you might be interested. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/04/nbc-news-brian-williams-scandal-comcast Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! Bruiserid, I'll have a look! XavierItzm (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Shooting of Michael Brown, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some 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.Please be aware of WP:BRD you edited boldly (B) and were reverted (R), you need to take it to the talk page to discuss(D) the inclusion of the information you inserted, continuing to include this information will put you at risk of breeching WP:3RR which may lead to a block. Amortias (T)(C) 21:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. Please note WP:BRD reads "Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one" as a recommendation to the reverter. It is I who first made an edit based on what the RS indicates, and got reverted without the other editor following procedure, namely opening up on the TP. It seems to me that I am the victim here. Thanks for your time and attention. XavierItzm (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I should add that from the beginning all my edits had a full rationale. The other guy didn't even bother to write any. She or he just went ahead and reverted without so much as a "hello". Nice. XavierItzm (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Amortias (T)(C) 21:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help and for putting one of my objections very cearly on the talk page in just one short text! Please also be aware that the claim that she had "affairs" with women is unsourced, as I see it. There is a reference to some pages that we do not have access to, and I don't think we'll find anything to substantiate that on those pages. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Selective reference?
I noticed your recent edit of the newly started article Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in which you added reference to an article titled: "Islamic State: What you need to know". Following other "Islamic State" titled references that you have presented I was wondering how you came across this title.
When I did a search on (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND "need to know" I found that only a tiny proportion of content contained "Islamic State" in the title. You should also be aware that previous RfC discussions have agreed presentation as ISIL / Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. If you are interested I am sure that an editor such as Legacypac can find the exact reference for you.
GregKaye 15:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- If one stays away from US-centric media (which often follow the US-government-approved designation of "ISIL"), the most frequent name found is "Islamic State". So for example:
* The Telegraph: Islamic State: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/
* The London Evening Standard: Islamic State: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/assyrian-christians-flee-islamic-state-militants-in-northern-iraq-9945294.html
* BBC: Islamic State: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28116033
Et cetera. Having said that, there are some independent US media that routinely use "Islamic State", such as the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, although sometimes they will still show older, superseded names for the terrorists. XavierItzm (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)- I should add that Cole Bunzel of the Brookings Institutions strictly refers to "Islamic State" as "Islamic State," and furthermore adds:
“The Islamic State” refers here to the group once known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI, October 2006–April 2013), the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS, April 2013–June 2014), and the Islamic State (IS, June 2014–present). This usage conforms to the group’s own shorthand for itself—as “the Islamic State” (al-Dawla al-Islamiyya), or merely “the State” (al-Dawla)—going back to 2006." Is the Brookings Institution incorrect? XavierItzm (talk)- XavierItzm Why do you mention US centric? As I am sure that you realise governments across the world have made consistent use of ISIS and ISIL. Please recognise the POV also in relation to media presentation. I still want to raise the query as to how you chose your references. Within Arabic and Persian centric media the main reference is Daesh. It is the group presentation as "Islamic State" that has been widely rejected by the people most involved and this should be respected fairly. Also even if you do pick and choose your references according to your POV, please add the references with more than bare URLs. Please review and replace the bare URL citations that you have given. Instructions on this are found, in amongst other places, at the top of the Talk:ISIL page. GregKaye 06:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I should add that Cole Bunzel of the Brookings Institutions strictly refers to "Islamic State" as "Islamic State," and furthermore adds:
- If one stays away from US-centric media (which often follow the US-government-approved designation of "ISIL"), the most frequent name found is "Islamic State". So for example:
June 2015
Your recent editing history at Rachel Dolezal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I notice you've added the same content five times. -- haminoon (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Yay. The other warring editor does not get any sort of warning, nor is it explained why the other editor used a different pretense each time to delete the well sourced material. There's WP for you. XavierItzm (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Trans-racial
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Trans-racial. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Passing (racial identity). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Passing (racial identity) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. -- haminoon (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Quote marks
You replied to my comment on the article talk page but seem to have ignored the bit about quote marks. Quote marks are for direct quotations only. Putting paraphrased statements in quotemarks is a WP:BLP violations. I've had to fix up your edits several times now. -- haminoon (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is a ridiculous comment. I have never put inside quotations anything that was not literally quoted from a specific source, and I challenge you to cite any counterexamples. XavierItzm (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Umpqua Community College shooting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I utterly disagree with User talk:Mandruss's characterisation of the events. As you can see, others were making the exact same point that the edits up to that point were egregiously biased. I invite anyone else to look into this and it will be found Mandruss is simply trying to undermine my edits. XavierItzm (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP asks that users do not use sarcasm nor make aspersions on others, such as calling them "corrupt imbeciles." Here is what User:Mandruss wrote today at 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC):
"Therefore Wikipedia is a community of corrupt imbeciles. Thank you for that unique insight."
Let anyone who reads this page come to his own conclusions regarding User:Mandruss and his activities here on my user talk page. XavierItzm (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP asks that users do not use sarcasm nor make aspersions on others, such as calling them "corrupt imbeciles." Here is what User:Mandruss wrote today at 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC):
- Anyone is welcome to go to the record and read the entirety of User:Mandruss post of today at 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC), and verify that the text cited above within quotations is 100% accurate. Please evaluate User:Mandruss's actions accordingly. 10:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you add back the image on my behalf. Here is the removed code of the image. George Ho (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. You're at least the third person he's tried. I'll revert any such edit, per this. I've already advised/suggested that he just include a link to the image in the RfC, and apparently he doesn't like that idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello George Ho, can you believe how incredibly arrogant on the part of the other person it is to come to my page and preemptively and without any signal from my part write on this page that he would delete this action that in no way I had singled I might or might not do? Disgusting, I say. XavierItzm (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Policy on living persons at Talk:Cecil (lion)
I've posted about an issue here in which you are involved. Samsara 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Your claims of vandalism
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at November 2015 Paris attacks, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. LjL (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, your repeated putting of words into the voice of the WSJ that the WSJ never used is very questionable. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- It might be, but it's not vandalism. Please watch your words before you get accused of personal attacks. Anyway, we don't quote sources, we paraphrase them in the way that best suits our articles. "Islamic State" and "ISIL" are the same thing, and it doesn't' matter which exact term the source used. LjL (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- User LjL wrote: ""Islamic State" and "ISIL" are the same thing"
Perfect. Then we keep the accurate voice of the WSJ ref: "Islamic State." Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)- No, we don't, because it's not consistent with the rest of the article, and because we don't parrot what sources say, but we use our own words. Check WP:NOR which says that. Enough of this nonsense already. And, to go back to the original point, keep your vandalism accusations to yourself. LjL (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The WSJ never uses "ISIS" yet the quote states "The WSJ reported..." Very, very questionable to use the WSJ's voice to attribute something the WSJ never does. XavierItzm (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, we don't, because it's not consistent with the rest of the article, and because we don't parrot what sources say, but we use our own words. Check WP:NOR which says that. Enough of this nonsense already. And, to go back to the original point, keep your vandalism accusations to yourself. LjL (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- User LjL wrote: ""Islamic State" and "ISIL" are the same thing"
- It might be, but it's not vandalism. Please watch your words before you get accused of personal attacks. Anyway, we don't quote sources, we paraphrase them in the way that best suits our articles. "Islamic State" and "ISIL" are the same thing, and it doesn't' matter which exact term the source used. LjL (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, your repeated putting of words into the voice of the WSJ that the WSJ never used is very questionable. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The image of the perpetrator is nominated as FFD. I invite you for commentary. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
No-go areas article
Hey there. I just looked up the 'no-go areas' article on wikipedia, found it awfully lacking, and looked at the talkpage. What I found was a clique of biased Wikipedians blocking the addition of (your) useful information and sources to the article, regardless of what arguments or information they were presented. Well, since I am of the opinion the articles you (and another person) intended to add are valuable and useful to improving the quality of the article, I wish to inform you the most persistent of them has, since then, left Wikipedia altogether. You can improve the article now. 86.90.43.5 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
About risk of sanctions on articles like 2015 San Bernardino attack
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.