User talk:Sanillin1

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

Your edits to Talk:Billava have so far consisted of demanding deletion without a policy based rationale, recommending we violate copyright by copying major chunks of a source (most of which wasn't even about the Billava), and the recommending we replace the contents of the Wikipedia article with that found in another wiki. Please read the above warning. Similarly, please read our guideline on reliable sources, our rule requiring information to be verifiable, and our policy forbidding original research. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Billava, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Arctic Kangaroo 08:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Billava, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Arctic Kangaroo 08:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sanillin1. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your disruptive editing, continuing despite warnings, and the above mentioned decision to allow administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, you are hereby indefinitely banned from editing on the topic of Billava, broadly construed, including any editing of the article Billava or its talk page, and engaging in any discussions related to the subject. This ban may be lifted by any administrator if you can persuade him or her that you will edit within Wikipedia's accepted framework, and will work within consensus. Any infringement of this ban may result in a block from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense for an editor to post to start a thread on the dispute resolution noticeboard on a topic from which he or she is banned from editing. Doing so amounts to an attempt to get round the restriction on editing the article and its talk page. I am therefore rephrasing the ban, to make it a more general topic ban, and to avoid the need to deal with all sorts of edits that skirt round the edges of the exact wording of the ban. Note that the words "broadly construed" mean that any editing at all that can reasonably be regarded as related to the subject may be taken as being a violation of the ban. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this edit was an unambiguous violation of your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions, but you must still abide by your topic ban. It is also very unlikely that you will have that topic ban lifted as long as you do not seem to grasp what is a reliable source. Wikis are not normally reliable sources, and as for giving as a source a page which says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the top as a source to justify including content in a Wikipedia article, that is just absurd. Had your post to my talk page been your only recent edit on this topic, I would have been asking you for further clarification of what you had in mind, but I am not doing so while you are ignoring your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you may, if you wish, contact me again about this. However, if you do so, then I suggest you make it clearer exactly what changes you hope to make, and how they will differ from what you did in the past. You may also like to explain what you mean by "the abused massage", as I don't know what you are referring to. Finally, you are unlikely to have your topic ban lifted as long as there is an impression that what you mean by "biased" is "anything that you personally disagree with". What content is acceptable in a Wikipedia article is determined by reliable sources, not by editors' personal points of view. Since you seem to be unclear about what constitutes a reliable source, I strongly suggest carefully reading Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources before you return to editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.