User talk:Mili977: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:06, 14 August 2022

Welcome!

Hello, Mili977, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Jai Jag Janani Maa Durga, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! AllyD (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jai Jag Janani Maa Durga

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jai Jag Janani Maa Durga, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gandheswari moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Gandheswari, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jack Frost (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

මහාසම්මත

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page මහාසම්මත to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"මහාසම්මත" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect මහාසම්මත. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#මහාසම්මත until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Devi-Bhagavata Purana, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. I am not changing anything by my will, give reliable sources to support your claims..245CMR.•^👥📜 16:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent change was original research, give reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:RS before reverting my edits. This is the last time one can revert or there will be a block for edit warring..245CMR.•^👥📜 16:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please first see the criteria for WP:RS, the source which you added is not reliable. Read the instructions..245CMR.•^👥📜 17:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing.

Note: Sources which you provided are not reliable and this is not the first time I am telling this to you..245CMR.•^👥📜 18:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Devi-Bhagavata Purana has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add poorly sourced material to Wikipedia.

Note:The source which you added is not reliable.245CMR.•^👥📜 08:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. .245CMR.•^👥📜 14:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Mahadevi, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See the discussion at Talk:Mahadevi#Requested_move_19_June_2021. DanCherek (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mahadevi, you may be blocked from editing.

The move was occurred after a discussion on talk page. Your reasons are not valid.245CMR.•^👥📜 04:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Mahadevi.

Note: You need evidence for your claims, see the talk page of Mahadevi why Adi Parashakti was moved to Mahadevi. See WP:Name..245CMR.•^👥📜 07:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. .245CMR.•^👥📜 07:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Mahadevi. 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 ~~~~}}. Sandstein 09:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Adi Parashakti. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. However, as at least one other editor has contested your changes, you are advised to submit a request at WP:RM if you still wish to change the title. —Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Tripura Sundari, you may be blocked from editing. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 05:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mahadevi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bow and Arrows. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakhya

Please provide reference for the iconography. Though Kamakhya is worshiped in an-iconographic form, the only iconography that is acceptable is the the chalanta image in the temple. Chaipau (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the original iconography? The image your image is based on? If not, you will have to remove it, because that would be WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image based on the references in the article. Mili977 (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edits at Goddess Durga article

Durga has been proved (by many saints in india) the most supreme form also known as Mahadevi Parashakti. She is the creator of both Trimurti (brahma, vishnu, mahesh) and Tridevi (saraswati, lakshmi, kaali). You should refer to the references provided by me before removing my edits.

Kindly refer to the links again^[1]^[2]

Please don't do misleading edits. There's no mention of Tripura Sundri in any of the major holy texts. Maybe Tripura Sundri is the form of Durga only. But about Durga being the most supreme, all texts show this including bhagwat gita, shiv mahapuran, devi bhagwat etc.

I request you to undo the changes you've done and if not please provide a detailed reasoning. There's also no source about the mention of Tripura Sundri. Keshavv1234 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in any purana that Goddess Durga created the trimurti. She is always referred to only as Shiva's wife. In the shiva purana she is mentioned as wife of shiva, in Markandeya purana she is mentioned as one of forms of Mahalakshmi. Brahmanda Purana is the one eighteen major Purana in Hinduism. Its clearly mentioned Tripura sundari as the Highest form of adi parashakti. Also in the Cult of Sri Vidya she is worshipped as Brahma swaroopini. Also in Kamakshi temple in Kanchipuram she is worshipped as Brahma Swaroopini. You should read Devi Bhagavatam first. Devi Bhagavatam clearly mentioned Durga as the devotee of Krishna and one of five forms of Devi Bhuvaneshwari. So in the Devi Bhagavatam Parashakti mentioned as Form of Bhuvaneshwari. In the Purana Durga herself told she is part incarnation of Mula prakiti. Many sources are already given in the article. Thank you. Mili977 (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also your Sources are not seems to be valid Mili977 (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In holy texts, it is clearly mentioned that Durga is the principal one and is the creator and mother of Trimurti and also Tridevi. All devis emerged from her and this are her forms. You should refer to these citations first.^[1]^[3] What you are telling is not appropriate at all and this is such a misleading edit that you are doing continuously at Durga article. Just go through my provided references only once without claiming that they aren't reliable. Those websites just have the original texts of bhagwats and purans which are just justified there. If you say I can provide more major websites claiming same. Or you can just go directly through devi bhagwat, durga stuti, durga saptashati, bhagwat gita, shiv mahapuran etc.

When this is clearly mentioned in the holy texts then how can you say that this is false. In these texts this line is clearly mentioned. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiv are calling Durga their mother and thanking her for creating all 3 of them. And then Durga tells all 3 their names and then all 3 start heading the universe with Brahma being creator, vishnu as preserver and shiva as destroyer.

Durga is principal shakti and she is same in the form of vishnu's shakti as lakshmi, shiva's shakti as parvati/sati and brahma's shakti as saraswati. So she is very important. You must have heard that shiv without shakti is shav. Shiv is many times seen in poster along with Durga who rides on lion/tiger because she is same as parvati. All devis are forms of shakti durga only.

Pls read holy texts deeply without doing such misleading edits. Keshavv1234 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not true. Please study devi bhagavatam first. Its never mentioned durga as a principle aspect of parashakti. Whole devi purana mentioned goddess bhuvaneshvari as parashakti. According to Devi bhagavatam. Durga is a one five aspect of devi. Also its clearly mentioned in devi purana durga is devotee of krishna. Please dont do such misleading edits. You will get banned. Mili977 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavat Gita is a vaishnava text its never mentioned durga as supreme. Dont spread wrong informations thank you. Mili977 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lalita Mahatmya moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Lalita Mahatmya, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

Needs references and sources to demonstrate notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous misleading edits

This is to bring to your kind notice that you are frequently doing misleading edits at many pages especially affiliated with goddesses based in hinduism. Your edits have major grammatical errors and misleading sentence formation. So kindly stop this. Also you are removing proper cited information without stating any reason which completely goes against wiki guidelines. I'm just trying to improve the articles and you are doing misleading edits. Sanctions Warned/wiki/2249112444SN119. Keshavv1234 (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing misleading edits not me. Please kindly check again your content. Mili977 (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not link the name Durga to every page. Only some devotees accept Devi Durga as the original form of the goddess. Mili977 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only you don't accept. The most notable Adi Shakti is Durga only. Actually the truth is that all devis are same shaktis but are divided in different forms. I'm not saying that Bhuvaneshwari isn't supreme. However, Durga is also principal and is most worshipped among any devi Or Shakti. The citations supports this info.

You are just promoting Bhuvaneshwari only to be supreme which isn't true. Durga and Bhuvaneshwari are however same but Durga/Navdurgas are most worshipped and revered. The main energy is Adi Shakti and is also the principal and highest form Keshavv1234 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Change Wikipedia with your personal believes Mili977 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your references are not validate. You just keep adding Durga name to every page related to Goddess. Mili977 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tripura Sundari page was also changed without any basis. Although energy is one, Adi Shakti and Parashakti are two states of the same energy. According to Sri Vidya tradition and Devi Bhagavatam, Durga is a part incarnation of Goddess Tripura Sundari and Bhuvaneswari. So don't make unnecessary changes on Tripura Sundari page. Mili977 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you are doing. I'm doing additions with proper references and you are removing it without any reason.

Sanctions Warned/User/Mili977/22488791SN113 - possible vandalism. User against wiki guidelines/misleading edits. Keshavv1234 (talk) 15: 43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Favonian (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Durga. Thank you.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the subjects of India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I would strongly advise that you utilize the time you are blocked from editing to read and understand the above notice of the topic ban. If you have any questions, you may ask them here; I will have the page on watch and you are also welcome to ping me if you like. Further violations of the topic ban are likely to lead to much more lengthy blocks or an indefinite one. While I will extend some leeway for the edits you made shortly after the ban was imposed in that you may not have seen the message yet, that's not the case two days later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Mili977. Thank you. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b "Who is the creator of bhrahma, vishnu and mahesh". Bhagwat Gita. Retrieved 2022-04-28.
^ J. Gordon Melton; Baumann, Martin (2010). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, 2nd Edition. ABC-CLIO. pp. 2600–2602. ISBN 978-1-59884-204-3.
^ https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-mother-of-Lord-Shiva-lord-Vishnu-lord-Brahma/answer/Jagadeesh-260?ch=10&oid=271004464&share=189b1e5c&srid=ux6NoO&target_type=answer

[CreatorofTridev-1] "Who is the creator of bhrahma, vishnu and mahesh". Bhagwat Gita. Retrieved 2022-04-28.

[Melton2010p2600-2] J. Gordon Melton; Baumann, Martin (2010). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, 2nd Edition. ABC-CLIO. pp. 2600–2602. ISBN 978-1-59884-204-3.

[3] ttps://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-mother-of-Lord-Shiva-lord-Vishnu-lord-Brahma/answer/Jagadeesh-260?ch=10&oid=271004464&share=189b1e5c&srid=ux6NoO&target_type=answer

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 188: / Line 188: @@
 <div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the &#91;&#91;WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard&#93;&#93; or &#91;&#91;WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard&#93;&#93;. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/Seraphimblade|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.&nbsp;</p>[[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 10:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators]] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->
 :I would ''strongly'' advise that you utilize the time you are blocked from editing to read and understand the above notice of the topic ban. If you have any questions, you may ask them here; I will have the page on watch and you are also welcome to [[WP:PING|ping]] me if you like. Further violations of the topic ban are likely to lead to much more lengthy blocks or an indefinite one. While I will extend some leeway for the edits you made shortly after the ban was imposed in that you may not have seen the message yet, that's not the case two days later. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 10:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
+== Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion ==
+Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]] regarding a possible violation of an [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] decision. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mili977|Mili977]].  <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. --[[User:Gilgul Kaful|Gilgul Kaful]] ([[User talk:Gilgul Kaful|talk]]) 08:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)