User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

May 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Narendra Modi. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
It is all sourced. It is in the same sources that are already used, but which have been used only for cherry picking positive information. Please dont place bogus warnings without checking the sources. Its sloppy. (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Narendra Modi with this edit. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop making unfopunded accusations. All of the information I have added is in the sources already used. (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please give a read-through to our BLP policy. We require editors to be very careful in how they characterize article subjects; negative information needs to be impeccably sourced and weighted appropriately. You appear to be focusing on adding as much negativity to the article as you can, instead of being careful about the fact that we're writing about a living person. "Something published says X" isn't the only consideration here; there's also "Was the publication reliable?", "Was the publication neutral?", "Am I characterizing the source's position neutrally?", and "Am I using the source's information in an appropriately-weighted manner that doesn't unnecessarily insult or defame the article subject?". Those are where you are running into trouble, and those are why I suggest you check over the policy some more before you continue editing the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If the sources are reliable for positive information then surely they are reliable for criticism also. Just as if his positive character traits are notable then his negative ones are too. (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, it's possible for a source to be reliable and for you to still be using it in a way that spins the article non-neutrally. I know from a purely logical standpoint it seems as if positive and negative information should be in a 50-50 balance, but the fact is that we're not going to damage someone's real life by saying they're too nice the way we can by saying they're, say, a "chauvinist" or "anti-muslim". We need to be sensitive to the fact that saying stuff like that requires much stronger backup and much more care in phrasing than, say, "he's a vegetarian." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it neutral to take 5 sources that include bothy positive and critical information and only include the positive information from them? Is it a reasonable way to use a highly critical source to use it to source a minor detail while excluding its main point? To me this looks like misrepresentation of sources and cherry picking. That is not how a neutral biography is written according to wikipedias own policies. You should know this. (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Narendra Modi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. REad WP:BLP & WP:3RR, do not restore that crap again. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I have not violated any policy. This warning is invalid. (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Narendra Modi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Well actually it shows taht you are engaged in an editwar too. And you are an administrator. So what about you go back and read the sources and try to build a neutral article without cherry picking information that presents a single positive viewpoint? (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines is not an administrator. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Ha! I was just about to say that, Fluffermutter. IP, the article is a mess and the talk page is not much better. But edit warring over it will really not advance things. Like it or not, we have to discuss. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Maunus, I dont know what you are watching. Hence pasting this notice in all possible venues. The discussion is here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maunus, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Amit (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


Maunus, you are yet again indulging in personal attacks on the page of Modi, please be warned that if you continue this I will have to seek admin action against you .-sarvajna (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to try. Those are not personal attacks. (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Star Trek with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Ireland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Favonian (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I do not understand why I was blocked. I merely wanted to correct the clear bias that exists here on Wikipedia. Ireland is and always has been a British possession. Just because some people do not recognize the this, namely some terrible papist thugs and hooligans, does not mean that Wikipedia should shy away from the truth of the matter. The Union Flag is the flag of Ireland. The Cross of St. Patrick represents Ireland upon the flag. It would not be there if Ireland was not part of Britain. God save the Queen, and may he also confound the knavish tricks of this foolish Danish philistine who has blocked me. I demand to be unblocked at once, and free to edit at will. To be able correct such falsities that those who know nothing about British affairs proliferate. (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You obviusly are not interested in editing constructively here or taking this block seriously, so I will be extending it and revoking your ability to appeal in this manner. You may contact WP:UTRS or WP:BASC by email if you wish to appeal further. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jeh. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Serial port, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The very first use of "DE-9" in the article is a pipelink to D-subminiature, which explains why it's called a DE-9 and provides authoritative sources (links to connector manufacturers' literature). Please read it. Calling it a "DB-9" is a widespread error, but an error nevertheless. Since the error is widespread you will be able to find usages in what appear to be RSs, but they're still errors. The nomenclature picked by the company that invented and still makes these connectors is what we go with. One could ask "why not mention that some people call it a DB-9"? The answer is yes, that's a good idea; we do that in the D-subminiature article. Jeh (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine[edit]

Maybe that was fun. Please don't do it again. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, 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. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jay Postal, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. An edit you recently made to Samba (ballroom dance) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)