User talk:Mirtuh

References

<[53].[1] />

Hi Mirtuh! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

March 2014

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Vishnu, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. FenixFeather (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: In the future, you can just remove information for being unsourced rather than making counterclaims in the edit summary.

Legal threats

Please don't threaten legal action in your edit comments. The edits you have made appear to be about a disagreement about content, and as far as I can see there was no defamation or any other grounds for litigation. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats you should first try to resolve the dispute by other means. I suggest that you start a discussion on the talk pages of the articles in question. Sjö (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Shiva

Hey Mirtuh. I noticed you deleted some stuff on Shiva. While you did delete some link spam, you deleted some other legitimate sourced content. Make sure that when you delete something, you provide an accurate edit summary. I assumed it was a mistake for now and restored the sourced content. If you want to remove stuff that is well cited, generally you should go to the talk page first to get a consensus. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 05:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vishnu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bhumi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. 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.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit had an edit summary stating "Content appeared intentional slanderous and lacks neturality . Disinformation can be treated on legal grounds". You've been warned before about this and ignored the warning. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And between that edit and my block, I find[2] with the edit summary "content regarding Bramhanda Purana deleted source cannot be treated as aunthentic. Content looked slanderous,malicious and amounts to be treated on legal grounds.Legal charges can be pressed". Clear legal threats. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This one was earlier, missed it was it wasn't on my Watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also this recent legal threat as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page if he could be unblocked if he agrees not to make further legal threats. I have to say that I won't unblock him, given that he has been warned before and ignored the warning. He would have to be very very convincing. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)