User talk:Capitals00

Hinduism page

I clarified the relevance to Hindu practice per the reference.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dispute resolution

I requested dispute resolution here. Please give your input FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined G10

Hi Capitals00. I have declined the G10 tagging at the SPI report. By doing so, I am in no way indicating it has any validity. On the other hand, it's totally opaque to a responder like me – just a tagging as if the filing of a report self-proves an attack, and without any pointer to a previous finding to corroborate that notion. Absolutely, this could be have no validity, but it also could be absolutely correct. If it was possible for a person accused to foreclose the investigation itself by just deeming it an attack before investigation took place, that would destroy the whole point of the process.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Criticism of Hinduism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

Hi Capitals, No edit summary or justification on your edits, and reinstatement after a revert without any discussion. This is no good! you (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not reverting you. I made this edit[1] because caste system among Muslims is about muslims of numerous regions around the world, thus labelling that article as limited to "Indian Muslims" is underestimation. Since there is no separate article for the caste system of Sikhs, it shouldn't be mentioned, but since their communities have a caste system as well as others like Zoroastrians, Jains, I mentioned "among others", instead. I changed a section title to "Widows", because provided source has not used the word "discrimination" anywhere or anything similar. Is that enough for a explanation? Capitals00 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, note that these are all subtle and contentious points. They need to be stated and, if necessary, debated. It doesn't help to resort to edit-warring. I will copy your post to the article talk page and continue there. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation for dispute on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

There is an open mediation request involving you over here [2] in regards to our disagreement on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Xtremedood (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit warring at Indo-Pakistani war of 1971

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It looks you are reverting against the talk page consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Capitals00 reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: ). in this edit you revert mention of Bangladesh forces in the military victory, though an RfC about that is still visible on the article talk page. You were offered a chance for mediation but you did not accept. There may still be time for you to respond at the noticeboard to avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, keep in mind that I am not reverting on that article for a long time, nor I am going to revert the recent edit. Capitals00 (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are mentioned here [3] in the arbitration request noticeboard. Xtremedood (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration 2

You are mentioned here [4], in regards to the dispute in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 in the arbitration request noticeboard. Xtremedood (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration declined

A request for arbitration you were party to has been declined.

The request has been declined as alternate methods of dispute resolution specifically a RFC have not yet been undertaken.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 20:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration declined

A request for arbitration you were party to has been declined.

The request has been declined as the request should be made as an Arbitration Enforcement request.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 20:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitals00!

Please reply to the on-gooing dispute at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. 14.98.84.194 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan-Egyptian War

Why exactly did you refer me to this page? The user in question added a sourced statement for what is actually the truth - that the war ended in a Egyptian victory (in addition to return to prewar lines). Why did you think this merited administrator attention? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to check, because you had agreed that Mikrobølgeovn is misrepresenting sources[5][6] and committing WP:OR. @Buckshot06: can you point out where did the source mention that the outcome Egyptian victory? There was no change in territory and there was official ceasefire that stopped the war, reliable sources must state that it was victory of Egypt then only we can state it. All sources only state that it was a ceasefire,[7] or mediation that was first accepted by Egypt.[8], "Four days later, Egypt declared a unilateral cease-fire, which Libya accepted."[9] There was no victory. 14:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The point I've been trying to make is that 1) Gaddafi initiated the war to hamper Egypt's negotiations with Israel, 2) Libya's invasion of Egyptian territory was repelled, and 3) Egypt held land on the Libyan side of the border when the war ended, and only withdrew after the guns fell silent. The source specifically mentions Gaddafi gave up on his war aims. This being said, this discussion should preferably take place on the relevant discussion page, and there only. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take part in this discussion, Mikrobolgeovn, especially after the undertaking you gave me on your talk page. This is an administrator-action, rather than content, query to try and clarify why this user called me in.

Capitals00, the other user added a dead-tree, hardcopy source, which no doubt he had to do some looking for, but substantiates what is reasonably obvious: the Egyptians defeated the Libyans on the battlefield. Thus you might have trouble finding this source. None of the other formulations you've advanced rule out military victory. That some authors say that is the measure of the sources: you've quoted three conflict-resolution books, and Cooper et al is a military researcher/writer: they will naturally emphasise different things. Anyway, I understand more where you're coming from now, but please remember that you may not necessarily be able to verify dead-tree sources, and one needs to assume good faith that what editors reproduce from those sources is indeed what one would find in the printed book. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: doesn't seem like Mikrobolgeovn brought anything new really and he is still misrepresenting source. If you check his earlier edit[10] you would find that link[11] (unreliable WP:SELFPUB) was available in those days, but now its dead and available only from archive website[12], it is not showing anywhere that the war was Egyptian victory, then on this edit[13] he presents a quote that says: "Understanding that his military was too hopelessly outclassed and out of condition to instigate any political changes in Cairo, Gaddafi subsequently gave up his pressure upon Egypt." Again, it is not saying anywhere that war was Egyptian victory. Capitals00 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, and yes. Take a look at https://books.google.com/books?id=wELdCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cooper,+T.,+%26+Grandolini,+A.+Libyan+Air+Wars:+Part+1:+1973-1985&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-iaTK0bfNAhXDHB4KHQiRBSgQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Cooper%2C%20T.%2C%20%26%20Grandolini%2C%20A.%20Libyan%20Air%20Wars%3A%20Part%201%3A%201973-1985&f=false. Look closely and you'll see it's one of Cooper's published works, a WP:V by our standards. I cannot yet figure out a way to access pages 21-25, though. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Capitals00. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS alerts

Hi Capitals00, please note that, before giving a DS alert on a topic, you are supposed to check if the user has already received an alert for that topic. It is not appropriate to give another alert within 12 months. Frequent DS alerts constitute hounding. Please don't do it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood that he was already notified recently after I had already left the notification, his talk page is way too long that I stopped loading the page in middle and left the notice. Otherwise its not usual. Capitals00 (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir conflict, Ragging etc

Hi there, Thanks for doing the Ragging mergers. As for the sexual violence in Kashmir bit, it was clear to me that there was no consensus for merger to the Human rights pages. That is why I withdrew from the process, and really have no wish to go back. It is not fair to me when you include me in an RfC announcement, even if indirectly. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing, I am fine with that. Just letting you know @Fowler&fowler: that I had again pinged you on the article, but you can ignore it since it was purely accidental. Capitals00 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that you can't change a post you made on WT:INDIA after people have already responded to it by voting at the AfD site. You may open a new section at WT:INDIA. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Southeast Asian religion: disruptive forumshopping. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming 3RR

Hi there. After the last few days, I feel I should advise you that you may not revert an editor just because you suspect they are a sockpuppet. The banning policy permits removal of comments by confirmed sockpuppets, only after it is proven that the account is operated by a blocked or banned editor, but removing such comments is not required and is often frowned upon if removing the comment alters the context of a conversation. Also, I think I should advise you that if you find yourself needing to justify your reverts with guidelines like WP:BLPREMOVE, it's probably better to stop reverting and file a complaint at the appropriate noticeboard. The WP:3RRNO exceptions are meant to protect the encyclopedia from blatant vandalism and urgently libelous content, not an excuse to revert any edit you disagree with, and I think you are quickly running out of administrators who will only warn you about this. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seemed to have mistaken there at the time when I did removed the comment from article thinking "its obvious sock", but you are right. Capitals00 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Building on this: Capitals00, G5 only applies to pages created by a block-evading editor. It does not apply to pages created before they were blocked. More generally, I strongly suggest you abandon your vendetta against Terabar and ProudIndian007, and focus on building content. Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's why I have been only tagging those articles that were created with a sock after indef block on main account. I don't have any "vendetta" against Terabar and ProudIndian007 unless there was some formality Capitals00 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several of your tags were removed a few days ago, IIRC. There is no formal vendetta, I hope. All I am saying is that you are spending too much time in activities related to ProudIndian, and I am suggesting that you focus your energies elsewhere, as that is likely to be more productive. Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: That's correct and yes I got it. Capitals00 (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

@Ivanvector: I was thinking that similar to Bhumihar, Jat people. These 2 articles that caused this conflict can be protected under 30/500 per WP:AC/DS. It is certainly agreeable that per WP:BRD, other editor who was disagreeing with the stable version while violating the policy (WP:V, WP:BLPCAT) had to follow WP:BRD, even after all that, the consensus on talk page is clearly supporting my edits. Now that Terabar is going to get blocked anytime and probably not stop socking since its on-going for 9 years already, I believe that solution would be to protect article under 30/500. Capitals00 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: It seems that Drivarum is still not dropping the WP:STICK, during unblock request he had said "Lastly, after reading "Wikipedia:Edit warring" and "Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding" I admit I did "Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding" and I won't do it again."[14] But he is back to it now,[15] asking same questions for which Terabar got blocked.[16][17] Capitals00 (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your ping didn't work, I was just coming by here to check an entry on my watchlist when I saw your note. I've left a note at the ANI thread. I assume you've replied to Bbb23's question about your IP connection and he would have acted on it if he saw a need to do so, and none of the rest of us need to know what's going on there. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping is not working now. I just saw I had been pinged at WP:AN[18] but never got notified. Capitals00 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Zaid Hamid

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://tribune.com.pk/story/11701/will-the-real-zaid-hamid-please-stand-up. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: This goes back, few years ago:- [19].

Do you think the following version would be better?

Indian Sikhs of Punjab are Muslims under cover, and they are allied with Pakistan.
Embracement of gold standard was a Zionist plot
Hindus are the actual suicide bombers in Pakistan, because they are uncircumcised
Pakistan's will fly on Delhi Red Fort anytime soon
Nuclear weapons possessed by the non-Muslim nation will either become obsolete or explode on their own regions.
In Islamabad, the Pakistan’s elected leaders share same fate as Mohammad Najibullah, dead bodies being hanged on poles.

Capitals00 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not much better, as it presents the same material in the same order using almost identical wording. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Substantial similarity — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct I will find other sources for each of these points instead, will make it easier to include. Capitals00 (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynching of Mohammed Ayub Pandith or 2017 Nowhatta lynching

Since important political leaders have condemned this lynching, it can be an article as the articles about cow lynching. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess that's the next stop of the concerning editor. Capitals00 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add any material ...

... to Violence related to cow protection in India. The page is under dispute. There is an admin who has been editing the page and engaging in discussions on the talk page. He, user:Vanamonde93 is away until July 5. Please do not make any edits to the article. And I do mean any edits. It would be best if you self-reverted the ones you made recently. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

U can reply to the report Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Nathu_La_and_Cho_La_clashes.23Discussion_about_improving_this_page -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Godhra page

Hello,

I agree with your comment regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Undue_quote_of_Martha_Nussbaum_on_lead

I have mentioned the same on the talk page. Do let me know how you wish to resolve this. Notthebestusername (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore page

Please stop your disruptive editing on the Lahore page. Consensus has NOT been reached. Willard84 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was reached on talk page, despite your continued edit warring and sockpuppetry with IP address. Capitals00 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop criticizing other ideologies which are different from so called "islam"

You've been specifically targeting edits made by members of other religions and been reporting it to the admins by twisting the facts that suit your own extremist ideologies. I hope to see this stopped immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aisha666 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) This is your first edit on Wikipedia. Who are you? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Curiosity

Hi Capitals00. Just out of curiosity, and as a friendly, interested question: why the shift to the Dravidians as the 'Ur-culture' of India, while Indians have so long emphasized the Aryan heritage? Doesn't that raise a lot of problems for the Indian narratives on the Aryan identity ("Aryan" not as "race" or whatever, but as culture, language, religion, etc.)? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned ...

... that India is a WP:Featured article, per WP:OWN#Featured_articles please discuss and gain consensus on an article's talk page before making any significant edit, especially in this case, making on-the-fly changes to an edit that was made at the time of an FAR six years ago when dozens of eyes were watching. Hand-waving that some people somewhere allegedly arrives at a consensus doesn't do diddly squat for your edit. Either you make the argument, or they make the argument, but it has to be made in the current thread in Talk:India. The text doesn't say anything about slaves anyway. Be warned again to stop this nonsense. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Seems like a misunderstanding here, because the edits I made today are not about "the text" regarding slaves, in Ancient India section of the article but some other section. According to WP:OWN#Featured_articles, "it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first" and I am clearly following it. I had only removed the problematic edits today that were made not only without consensus and in fact after total rejection on talk page.(Talk:India/Archive 38#Society section) I have already described it on Talk:India#Challenges. You have restored the problematic content in question, probably after thinking that I was altering India#Ancient India. Capitals00 (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of category

Hello Capitals00, as you know, in the years before the 1962 war, there were many clashes between India and China with regards to posts and patrolling in the disputed area, the most prominent being the incident at the Kongka Pass in 1959. Before around 1959, both Indian and Chinese personnel used to patrol the area, but after the war, India was not able to patrol the area as China has complete control. The category Category:Areas_occupied_by_China_after_the_Sino-Indian_War is intended for these kinds of places that India was able to access before 1958-1959, but unable to access after the 1962 war. This is also mentioned in the Category discussion. Hence, I am adding the pages back to the category. I request your understanding in not removing them. Thank you, The Discoverer (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Discoverer: evidently you are the creator of this category, the only promoter as well as the only one to edit war over inserting it. Unless a WP:RS says that these were the regions that came under control of China after Sino-Indian War, then only you can insert them. Otherwise you should stop already. Capitals00 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the category is badly named, in that case you can request for renaming. But there is no other category to classify areas that were accessible to both countries before 1959, but completely controlled by China after the war. The Discoverer (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to continue this discussion on your talk page. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‎G5 decline

Robot editing and script editing is indeed exceptable from the criterion, but here we have content editing too: the removal of the birth date from the infobox in particular is relevant. The criterion's meant to get rid of content that's essentially untouched by another human (basically, would we delete this under G7 if it were requested?), not to cut off our noses and spiting our faces by deleting every page that the evading editor created. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on WP:AN for clarification. Capitals00 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

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 pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]