Jump to content

User talk:Jionakeli

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jionakeli (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 7 November 2017 (→‎November 2017). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Jionakeli! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 03:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Jionakeli, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Jionakeli! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

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)[reply]

Tyler Durden, The article needs time. I want to continue working on it. --Jionakeli (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert again

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Template:Z33

Capitals00 (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Stop icon

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)[reply]

You seem past 3RR. Please consider a self revert. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you seem to have violated 3RR.VR talk 00:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted to your early revision. Yes, this notice also applies for you @MSW. Jionakeli (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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)[reply]

November 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at AltNews.in. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Fortunately, another Administrator has reinstated the information[1]. I thought 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[2] and to the user's talk page as well[3]. And FYI, last time I was reported falsely and here is the diff[4]. Jionakeli (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]