User talk:Mansjelly

July 2014

Hello, I'm LeoFrank. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Unique Identification Authority of India seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — LeoFrank ^Talk 16:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Unique Identification Authority of India. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at India Against Corruption shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.

You are obviously not new to Wikipedia and you are obviously here to revive the ridiculous claims of the HRSA-based IAC organisation that were rejected at umpteen different venues on Wikipedia some months ago. Back then, the problem was more of meatpuppetry than socking and the same may apply now. In any event, you are not going to get that connection into the article against the widespread consensus that was formed earlier this year. Sitush (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to User talk:Sitush could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify

If you do not make it explicit that you do not intend to take any legal action OR suggest that others take legal action, I will have no alternative per our policy to block you. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your post to my talk page makes it clear that you didn't intent legal action. Sorry, but we do get a lot of statements that do turn out to be legal threats. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for warning me. Can you do something about this editor Sitush and his Uncivil talks.Mansjelly (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]