User talk:Jionakeli
Welcome!
|
Jionakeli, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Jionakeli! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
Nomination of 2017 Pratapgarh lynching for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Pratapgarh lynching 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/2017 Pratapgarh lynching 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. Tyler Durden (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Tyler Durden, The article needs time. I want to continue working on it. --Jionakeli (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
ARBIPA sanctions alert again
Please carefully read this information:
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 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.June 2017
Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- You seem past 3RR. Please consider a self revert. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Both of you seem to have violated 3RR.VR talk 00:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have reverted to your early revision. Yes, this notice also applies for you @MSW. Jionakeli (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Both of you seem to have violated 3RR.VR talk 00:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
November 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)- @MSGJ: while I learned that I should have waited but what the other editor with 80 edits since 2015, did was vandalism because sources like BBC, The Telegraph, Hindustan Times are not opinion pieces but news and removing these with edit summary WP:NOTOPINION is actually misrepresenting the policy. Reverting vandalism are exempted from 3RR. Anyway, I think the onus is on the editor who removed well sourced content to leave a talk page message. I undid and asked for it on the talk page[1] and to the user's talk page as well[2]. And FYI, last time I was reported falsely and here is the diff[3]. Jionakeli (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)