User talk:D4iNa4

Welcome to my talk page! Hello! Please leave a new message. I will respond to your message as soon as possible. Thanks and happy editing! Also take care of the following points: If I left you a message; please answer on your talk page, using {{ping|Username}}, {{reply to|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in your response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to my talk page. And if you leave me a message; I will answer on my talk page, using {{ping|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in my response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to your talk page. Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page or at the bottom of the respective section, and use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ":" Sign and date your entry by inserting four tildes "~~~~" at the end of your message. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. Avoid personal attacks, do not troll or use this page as a chat room. Please, always assume good faith. If the topic is something personal, please email me and leave {{ygm}} on my talk page. And if you are impressed by my contributions, consider giving WikiLove. ⇒Start a new topic⇐

Claiming you are reverting the last edit (your own!) when actually just adding a space is simply dishonest. Clean Copy^talk 00:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Copy the edit was made per WP:DUMMY, sometimes editors miss adding edit summary when it is recommended to provide it. In order to fix that, we can make a WP:COSMETICEDIT edit and put edit summary to describe previous edit that contained no edit summary. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look and check the sources of Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu. I have just removed one source that was incorrectly used for supporting the info not found in the source, but there may be more. 223.229.170.82 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, D4iNa4. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Russianvodka. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary (which I appreciate you doing this on the LGBT Rights in India article). If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. When you want to change an article's content that has been the accepted version for more than a few days, you need to discuss your intended actions before you make the edit. Thanks 01:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Russianvodka (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ashvamedha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello D4iNa4, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, —MBL Talk 05:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

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.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Hi. I am not at all familiar with this case, but would you please take a look at this diff? Both the accounts D4iNa4, and Yogesh Khandke are being used at the same time. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI was filed under the name of Yogesh Khandke, but that's it. It happens a lot of time that an SPI is filed under the name of an editor, but it reveals socks of a totally different editor, and the block log contains the link to the SPI that originally led the discovery of socks of the editor, even if it the accounts are unrelated to the formerly alleged sockmaster.[1] D4iNa4 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not against you or anything as such. We have never even had communication yet. It is just, I am confused by all this. I hope you understand.
So, in simple words, you and Yogesh Khandke are different persons? —usernamekiran(talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4 and Yogesh Khandke are  Unrelated. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D4iNa4 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke as separate SPIs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I had already seen both the SPIs, and I was confused because of the result of 23 April 2014 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke/Archive. See you around guys :) —usernamekiran(talk) 08:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re special:diff/829121558 I am not sure where in this template I am supposed to reply to you. Do I create a new section?

Also I'm wondering if it could be rephrased to be more specific as I had said a lot of things there. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi D4iNa4
The reference in the Dalit Panthers article you changed to in this edit i.e. this url does not work. Could you please correct ot revert this? thanks - Arjayay (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was restoring last good version there. Have corrected title and not just URL. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you have recently deleted a scholarly citation on the article Bhimbetka rock shelters with out specifying any reason for the deletion. So the edit made by you have been restored. If you have any valid reason, lets discuss it here.. Thank you ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banasura (talk • contribs) 12:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see something sadly amusing, see his talk page. It didn't end well. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sad indeed. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

== Dont delete my suggestions to the Talk page of Bhimbetka rock shelters` ==

The talk page is for discussing about article. I have made a suggestion there. You have removed it with out saying any reasons. YOu have also removed the opinion of Klaus Klaustermeiyer added to that opinion with out specifying any reason. When you remove something, you should state the reason.. Just your vigour to hide certain content is not enough reason to remove some content.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.236.155 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2018 (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 Article redirect. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice you've deleted my posts there. Are you not getting edit conflicts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7 times in total.. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here too. Please change the way you deal with them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet got slow throughout these moments. Fixed it, now it's working well. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your efforts to protect the NPOV and scholarly -based contents. Kufarhunter (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably want to take things one comment at a time, especially on mobile where most people type slower, and where it's harder to quickly resolve an edit conflict correctly, before you end up getting more edit conflicts while you try to fix your first edit conflict. GMG^talk 19:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack me again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=836287715&oldid=836287297 This is not even remotely okay and if you do it again I will bring this up with an administrator. Also PLEASE, learn how to handle edit conflicts. That same edit shows you undoing a previous edit. You will be blocked quite quickly if you don't stop doing that. It's a big deal here, editing someone else's comments. You would be wise to stop arguing for once and listen to the good advice people are giving you. --Tarage (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet no admin took action because it was not an "attack", but an analysis of the situation in hand. There were edit conflicts, but I had already changed device and then made multiple edits[2][3] after the diff you have linked, thus there is nothing ongoing that I would need to "stop doing". I haven't argued over any "advice" until now. FWIW, your messages came much after the thread was already closed,[4] with Farawahar promising to leave Wikipedia for sometime.[5] The thread was archived at 4:24.[6] This case is already closed now. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4, my understanding is that a recent notification, or evidence or recent awareness, is necessary before any action can be taken. The reason for this is that the sanctions may have been modified (eased or made stricter or lifted) if a lot of time has elapsed since the previous action or notification. Though it is moot in this case because Js82 is blocked and because I don't think any thing actionable occurred anyway, I suggest that you notify editors who haven't received a notification in the last 365 days proactively so as to avoid getting into this sort of muddle. Or, if you think my reading is incorrect, you could ask for a clarification from arbcom. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was topic banned for 6 months topic ban under WP:ARBIPA,[7] and this topic ban was never modified or removed.[8]

WP:ARCA would be the proper venue, though I am not yet ready to fill all of its form and the main issue is moot since the user has been indeffed. For now I have invited an arbitrator, Newyorkbrad[9], to comment on this issue that if Js82 was subject to AE action following the AE report since he fulfilled the requirement of 2nd point of awareness of discretionary sanctions as listed on the policy page. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youve reintroduced names on a very long list of notables that we are trying to keep in a form that is not too large. They are the people with the fewest notable appearances in highest level competitions/games and the like. I see there were errors with deletions by another editor here and here - I'm not sure how Green and Fiedler and Tippett were deleted, etc, perhaps someone else did that, and that was a mistake, and it is excellent that you restored them, and their articles all substantiate them, and if someone wants the ref in the list also they should simply flag it (most lists as you know don't have that extra ref moved up to the list), and on looking at the deletions closely it is totally weird as many of them have proper refs in the list, and these are obviously not the less-notable people but highly-notable. The others are obvious I think. I've introduced many I am now deleting as the list has gotten longer. Please understand the reason. Plus - you are reintroducing errors that led to ce edits. Why in the world would you go against wp convention with team name? And the conformity of the list with showing "NBA" and "Euroleague"? And conformity of basketball player list format in reflecting Hymans height? And the abbreviation format in the list for other football players in reflecting short version of position? This list has been in place and reworked in this manner for years by a number of editors, and frankly nobody has done what you have done here -- a blind, non-thought out revert, keeping the least notables as the list gets longer, and reintroducing all the errors your reversion of ce's reintroduce. That frankly makes no sense, if you are part of us who want to keep this list manageable and up to date and in conformity. Which I expect you do. --2604:2000:E020:9500:E170:C83E:37FA:40CA (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My revert also removed a number of names that were added in violation of WP:BLPCAT. Page history shows that it was not before this month[10] that that a number of notable names were being removed. Because of these few issues I made blanket revert, despite there are many good edits that you made to the list concerning the small descriptions of the entries. Reverting won't accomplish, but you can remove the names again that you really believe should not be there and also modify descriptions of the entries. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a chance I will try to fix this. I think you made some great saves where some improper editor removed names that should be there. Without question. But you also without question roughly and without an explanation in the edit summary removed proper ce edits that were improvements. And I believe that for the reasons I said the less notable names should be removed, as they have been for years over time, as we keep the list manageable, because without this this list would of course look like all the relevant categories, which would be too long for our purposes. But I will try to fix this in a way that you and I, I hope, think will be proper - even though to be honest I think the rules are that you both should not make a blanket revert where you are reverting what even you would agree are for example proper ce edits - the rules don't allow that, and they also ask that you leave an edit summary when reverting an editor that gives a good reason for reverting them, which is not the case in for example those ce edits which I think you agree with. Anyway, it is more important, of these three issues, that you caught the deletes of Green and other major athletes, and without you that would not have been noticed, and I thank you for that. That was great. 2604:2000:E020:9500:8B:3E2:543A:A11E (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the edits that you had made. You can remove the names you don't think should be there, but remove them only when you have obvious reasons on which everyone would agree with you. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about your behaviour at WP:AE. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.

You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion.

This topic ban 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. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard after six months of positive contributions to Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan regarding the ARE decision that affected you. — MapSGV (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make edits like this one without leaving an edit summary. It isn't clear whether you're reverting sock-puppetry or whether you disagree with the substance of the edit, and in either case, you need to explain what you are doing. Vanamonde (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, I had explained my edit[11] but the IP hopped to another IP and reinserted the objectionable edit and ignored the concern.[12] I reverted him again because edit had been already explained. You need to know that there is a very tall community consensus that there is no requirement to put edit summaries and there is no policy either. Although it requires discussion when the concerning editor never ever leaves edit summary even when they frequently revert correctly explained revision of their edits, but that's not a case here since revision itself explanatory. You can open discussion on talk page when the edit is unclear to you. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. There is no requirement, but it is most certainly best practice, especially when a content dispute is involved. Ignore this suggestion, if you please; but your recent experiences at AE should suggest to you that your own assessment of your behavior isn't the same as that of the community. Vanamonde (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that it is not a requirement and the edit was obvious to you as well. I rest in my case. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You also reverted here without reasoning. If my sense of the English language is right, it also distorted the meaning - "has been" makes it sound like Hays has not lost the record since 2011, which is wrong. Please explain your edits in the future, thanks. Judith Sunrise (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the whole sentence which says "From Dec 10 2011 to Dec 17 2016, Hays has been the only person". Where did it said "since 2011"? Don't restore content without providing the correct source, this subject is WP:BLP. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll let the "has been" be. On the second sentence: What if I add a reference to the WCA-results like this: "On March 10th 2018, Hays ... time of 1:59.95"^[1] - would you be okay with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judith Sunrise (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"March 10" not "March 10th". You can add it. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there is already a reference after that sentence that links to his WCA-results, isn't that redundant to add two? Sureley if that ref is enough to source that he was the only one to hold the WR for those 5 years, that ref is also enough to show that he was the first one with a sub2 single in 7x7. Judith Sunrise (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ignore, I see that the information about the 7x7 single WR is already in (and referenced). I somehow missed that. Judith Sunrise (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi D4iNa4, I did see your revert on Sky Sword and wish to inform you that this IP is not Wikiexplorer13 (talk · contribs) but a different entity altogether. You can find more information on them at this page. Also, I have left a note on Vanamonde93's talk page for suggestions. Based on past experience, the IP is bound to hound me into the India, Pakistan, Afghanistan area. Please be careful with this IP since they use a VPN and can hound you for days even weeks. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just so you know, I've created an LTA case page for Wikiexplorer13, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikiexplorer13. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 07:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as far as I'm aware Pakhighway didn't have a habit of contributing problematic content. It would be appreciated if you only removed the content for which you have specific reasons to disagree with. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully checked the edits that need revert and left a bunch that seemed improvement. But read WP:BMB. Anyone is free to revert socks that there is no need of "specific reasons". Though my reverts mostly concerns reversions of his edits that are unilateral page moves, addition of wrong scripts, addition of non-working templates, WP:OR. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to BMB, I haven't read that in ages. Probably its most relevant section is WP:BANREVERT, which states that [a]nyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason [...] This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor. I take that to encourage the use of context-specific judgement. Anyway, I've only seen a small sample of Hudairawiki's edits, so I was wondering if you could give me one or two examples of problematic edits that you've reverted? – Uanfala (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the moves, yes, they are "unilateral", but they're quite uncontroversial. This for example replaced a hyphen with a dash, which as far as I can see brought the title in line with MOS:DASH (and with other similar articles, like Leh–Manali Highway). – Uanfala (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned that I "left a bunch that seemed improvement". His reverted edits include unexplained removal of sourced content,[13] WP:OR,[14] cut-paste move (considered COPYVIO) [15][16] massive addition of non-working template,[17][18] and you are right about dash (I have fixed now) but we have seen before with his unilateral page moves that they likely fail appropriate WP:RPM. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit you gave [19] doesn't seem to have removed any sources, and it's added one references. I can't evaluate whether the second one is OR (this is beyond my area), but it does indeed seem odd in removing references. It's good that you've identified the cut-and-paste move (though this is not a copyvio), but in that case the move was correct (the old title had a typo), so the correct thing to do would be to list it at WP:RMT. As for the last two edits, the template concerned is Template:Administrative divisions Rawalpindi District and it's not working now only because it has just been deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on WP:CUTPASTE, history merge is required for copyright reasons per also per WP:CWW. Including this title with a typo, I have a list of some other pages ready for WP:RMT. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello D4iNa4 , thank you for monitoring the druze page , I've noticed that you had been reverting my edits to the page and your reverts look to be in goodwill.

As a Druze myself with deep knowledge of the faith , I don't see that my edits had been controversial or that the version its being reverted to is more informative or accurate .

Please can we discuss the points you don't want to be removed from the page so we can reach a common ground rather than reverting all my edits.

Please lets discuss changes on talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Druze#Discussing_changes_suggested_to_introduction

Thank you and looking forward to hear from you. « Hiram111^{ΔTalK Δ} 04:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You recently reverted the removal of a small paragraph in Hinduism in Gibraltar that has been removed for claiming that Hindus in the area are the most educated and least crime-causing of religions, without providing a source. A short-term dispute on it was sufficient to cause semi-protection to be added (there were various IPs). If you do have sources for both aspects, then please could you add them if you reapply. Otherwise, it should probably go through the talk page Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had added with the ^{[citation needed]} tag since IP's edits were half-correct, such as his edit that there is 2% population.[20] D4iNa4 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you know where you got this information. Please cite your source. The material has been challenged, and it would be better to provide a source than (edit war) reinsert the content with a "cn" tag. Thanks..-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[21] D4iNa4 (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for your participation at this ANI thread. This editor is heavily involved in the topic area that you are banned from, and your participation there is clearly related to that topic area., you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:30, 14 August 2018 (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."

@BU Rob13: I am topic banned from conflicts between India and Pakistan and I have made no mention of that in my comment.[22] There is no violation of topic ban there. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion itself relates to an editor who's been involved in the same dispute in the India-Pakistan topic area that resulted in your topic ban. I do not think it was a coincidence that four of the editors topic banned along with NadirAli showed up at that thread. I do not believe any administrator would look at your participation in that discussion and see it as disengaging in from your protracted and ongoing personal dispute in the India-Pakistan topic area. You are welcome to appeal my block at WP:AE or WP:AN, and I'm happy to copy an appeal to either location if you would like. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]]. There have been enough AREs recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive238#Mar4d][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive235#Mar4d], where it was clarified that a person can comment but without mentioning or editing anything that is directly related to India-Pakistan conflict or the area related to topic ban. My comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=854619394] made no mention of conflicts between India and Pakistan as it was only about the user conduct. Neither I was commenting on conflicts between India and Pakistan. I had intentionally avoided commenting anymore in that thread because I believed that one comment without touching the topic ban is certainly enough. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4#top|talk]]) 19:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)}}

• @BU Rob13: Like I said in the appeal, this was a misunderstanding but from now it will serve as example. I made only one small comment and I am already out of that dispute. This is not going to be repeated again. Kindly lift the block. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've made two arguments here. One, that your contributions were not a violation. Two, that this is a misunderstanding and you won't make such a violation again. The first one doesn't give me great confidence in the fact that you understand the issue here and won't repeat it (even, perhaps, by mistake). I will leave this for AE. Please fill out the AE template for me to be able to copy your appeal over there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13: Sorry I had to be more clearer with my appeal. I have struck the above appeal now and made a new one. Kindly have a look. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

D4iNa4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had made my comment[23] as result of a misunderstanding after reading some of the recent AREs[24][25] where it was mentioned that a person can comment but without mentioning or editing anything that is directly related to India-Pakistan conflict or the area related to topic ban. But I realize now that it is a topic ban violation because the thread concerned the topic ban and the users who are sanctioned in this area can't comment on such threads that concerns the topic from where they are topic banned whether they make mention of it or not. I assure that this violation won't be repeated again. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked, with the expectation that you will remove yourself entirely from this dispute. Future violations are likely to result in longer blocks, and I wouldn't lift those. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit List of Indian inventions and discoveries and look at your edits in Special:Diff/855902753, twenty minutes later in Special:Diff/856063158 and again five days later in Special:Diff/856825699.

Mitrogen Nalaxide, synthesis in pure form: Narendra Damodardas Modi synthesized MH₄NA₂ in its pure form, and became the first scientist to have done so.^[1] Prior to Narendra Modi's invention of Mitrogen Nalaxide it was thought that the untreated raw sewer releasing Mitrogen was harmful for living beings and planet earth, Modi's invention changed the world treated sewer waste. Sewer waste is now regarded as natural resource by UNESCO, Narednra Modi was also awarded with Honorary doctorate by the "Institute of eminence" JIO Institute..^[1]
— IP51.252.37.127 2018-08-14T10:23:56

It does not take a BA in organic chemistry to notice that something is terribly wrong: (a) both Mitrogen nalaxide and what would be a {{R from miscapitalisation}} Mitrogen Nalaxide are redlinked, (b) Narendra Damodardas Modi is not know for being a chemist, and (c) File:Mitrogen Nalaxide 3D.JPG is redlinked. Three red flags, but the text that follows really nails this dead joke coffin.
We are much better served with an article that is missing the information about Prafulla Chandra Roy's synthesis of ammonium nitrite, than one that has a fantasy chemical mistakenly re-added by a regular editor, something a few people on Reddit have had a laugh about since you again added it on August 27. Sam Sailor 07:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am curious about your comment "redirect until notability is established" for the details of Jeon Heejin's individual page. It redirects back to the page about the group she is a member in. Does the notability in this case mean, until she has done something worth having her own page for, or until she is more well known, or until there is more information to put on the page? In all instances I am curious about the standard for deciding on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurk121 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, D4iNa4. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, D4iNa4. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you reached Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots, Who asked you ? --DBigXrayᗙ 14:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the main article a few times before. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page history of this article shows that you have never edited this page before, So again, who asked you ? --DBigXrayᗙ 14:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you are breaking the link there. When you put it correctly, you would find that I search made couple of edits months ago. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

with these edits diff ahead, you have controversially inflated the casualty figures in the article, without consensus, you have been reverted and per BRD you are supposed to make consensus instead of edit warring. [26] [27], you have been warned. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. DBigXrayᗙ 11:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Persecution of Hindus. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DTTR. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add that content back. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. The article describes persecution in a number of countries. Without any sources discussing which countries this is most frequent in, presenting only a few in the lead is a flagrant NPOV violation, and you know it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I haven't added the content. I only objected the misuse of templates.[28] D4iNa4 (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Applodion
• I was wondering if you think this user is the same as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Locus102? I suspected this both changed content on lion Cubs in exactly the same way. 92.9.146.74 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC) I wanted to request an edit lock on Ahir page as it's been continuously under vandalism attacks.

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

--DBigXrayᗙ 05:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@D4iNa4: Please check the WP Projects of Talk:Hindutva and Talk:Hindu nationalism. I tried to added new WP projects but those were reverted. Wrong wp projects are added which are not relevant to the article. Thanks--103.218.236.50 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Kautilya3: of interest to you, since you reverted this IP. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, you are welcome to "add" wikiprojects, assuming they are appropriate. But you cannot rate the quality or importance unless you are a member of the project and know its criteria. You also need to register an account if you want to do these things, so that we have a record and can check for consistency. If you do not want to register an account, that is your wish. But you cannot ask other editors to do edits for you. That amounts to WP:CANVASSING and WP:PROXY editing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if an edit is reverted, you are expected to open a discussion on the article's talk page, not at some random place like this one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Edithgoche (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Robert Lee Durham at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Lee Durham, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in June 2020, Southern Virginia University removed the name of Robert Lee Durham from its main academic building in the wake of the George Floyd protests, citing his racist views? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Lee Durham. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Lee Durham), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 01:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Note that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks; in Special:Diff/1108269812 you made an accusation of stonewalling when there was a rough consensus against including the material that you added (diff). Not only did your accusation lack evidence, there is evidence to the contrary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, pinging multiple users like this when the discussion already has participants is veering pretty close to WP:CANVASSING if it's not an example of it already. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]