Jump to content

User talk:Dopplegangman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dopplegangman (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 9 January 2024 (→‎January 2024 2: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are a known user on Wikipedia with disruptive edits and a know sock puppet
get a job Dopplegangman (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

signed, Rosguill talk 16:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Bhagavad Gita, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for two weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Personal attacks and harassment are not permitted on Wikipedia, and your combative behavior is way out of line. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Dopplegangman (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Your reason here i accept what I said may have been out of line but I think the block time is too long for the small amount of things said as well as this I was not the one who instigated this as the other user who I was responding to called me incompetent or at least referred to it and if I am to be blocked for two weeks he should also have a block as well~

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Your reason here i accept what I said may have been out of line but I think the block time is too long for the small amount of things said as well as this I was not the one who instigated this as the other user who I was responding to called me incompetent or at least referred to it and if I am to be blocked for two weeks he should also have a block as well~ |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here i accept what I said may have been out of line but I think the block time is too long for the small amount of things said as well as this I was not the one who instigated this as the other user who I was responding to called me incompetent or at least referred to it and if I am to be blocked for two weeks he should also have a block as well~ |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here i accept what I said may have been out of line but I think the block time is too long for the small amount of things said as well as this I was not the one who instigated this as the other user who I was responding to called me incompetent or at least referred to it and if I am to be blocked for two weeks he should also have a block as well~ |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Dopplegangman (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]