Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 9M730 Burevestnik. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at 9M730 Burevestnik shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring
Nicholas, you cannot edit like this. See the warnings above.
This is Wikipedia. By design, Wikipedia knows nothing and the editors are assumed to know nothing. Everything we write needs to be WP:Verifiable according to WP:RS Reliable Sources. We rely on these sources. Even if we "know" that something is different, or we know something the sources don't, or we know that "the sources are wrong", then we still rely on those sources. Because if we don't, it all just degenerates into a slanging match about "I know more than you do!!!". So we work from the sources.
The sources here are linking the two things. Now yes, I don't understand it either. And your "educate yourself" comment is offensive, because you have no idea who you're talking to and just how much they do know (there's at least one Nobel laureate editing on WP).
So you need to discuss your changes, on the article talk: page. Put forward your understanding of it, pick holes in what the sources claim, put forward a better version. Then maybe we can agree some consensus as to what to do next. Which may well be, if your claims are convincng, to either remove these sources or (even better) to still use them, but to explain why they're wrong. But this edit-warring is just going to get you blocked. I would advise you to revert your last removal, as you're potentially blockable already. Please discuss. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, hard to believe that this is the second time I agree with you in the space of a few weeks. Who knows, at some point we could be...colleagues! Friends! (Srsly, thank you for this note, and the explanation therein.)
Nicholas Velasquez, at least you gave an explanation of sorts in this edit summary--the problem is, it's kind of rude, and yes I am in that position because this is Wikipedia, and no not all opinions have to be represented because not all opinions are equal, and WordPress is a blog, and no I am not obliged to search for "Michael Kofman". You are, and it is up to you to prove that this WordPress thing by this person is a reliable source. Finally, please consider that "However, some experts disputed the assertions of their colleagues" is indeed verbose. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/michael-kofman This guy?} Well, he has an appropriate job and all that--and yet, that his not-peer reviewed blog is a reliable source is still not a given, and better sources should be found. I'm not going to edit war with you over this; I do hope that a. you will be less rude and b. you will consider rewriting that statement to make it informative and elegant. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being rude was not intended, I guess it's about the language barrier. Anyway, I am not even sure why we are discussing this, because all the rules regarding the use of blogs as sources on Wikipedia are already written on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_self-published_blogs. Among other things it says the following: "The blog is clearly identified on a credible site as belonging to that person(s). For example John Smith's biography on www.examplenewscompany.com identifies that he keeps a blog at livejournal and provides a link or other identifying method"; "The individual is a prominent individual in the industry or field which is the subject of the article", "The individual is a widely-acknowledged expert on the subject of the article", "The individual is a prominent individual in the industry or field which is the subject of the article", "The individual is a widely-acknowledged expert on the subject of the article". Needless to say, Michael Kofman's blog meets all these criteria. And this is exactly why I told you to google stuff before making edits, because otherwise you're risking creating a problem out of nothing.
What you posted on my talk page is better asked on an article or project talk page, or a noticeboard if things get out of hand. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Husky-class submarine, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Furke (radar), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mikoyan MiG-29K; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tupolev Tu-22M; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@BilCat: I am not sure what is up with all those "Edit war" messages, since all my reversions are explicitly clarified. And, as I messaged you previously, if you're not interested in a dialogue, there's no point in visiting my talk page. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 6:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You're not exempt from edit warring just because you think your edits are justified. Policy requires us to warn you before you can be reported for edit warring. Also, you've already made it clear you aren't interested in dialogue, or you wouldn't continue to edit war. You've not even been a registered user for a year yet, and yet you continue to assume everyone else is wrong. That's not being open to dialog. Most of your edits are good, so it'd be a shame for you to get blocked just for this. You keep it up, and you'll get blocked indefinitely sooner or later. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BilCat: I am well aware of how it works. However, at least in my experience, it is very rare on Wikipedia that someone would use the "Edit war" argument when dealing with an explicitly clarified reversions. Also, in your recent reversion, you (and the other guy in the Tu-22M article) referred to a non-existent Wikipedia guideline, so, considering this, and in general, by no means should I feel obligated to make a case for your changes on the article's talk page. As to the willingness to have a dialogue, your stance on in it is a borderline hypocrisy, since only a few days ago you refused to talk to me on your talk page deleting my messages twice in a row without replying, and what is even more funny, later accused me of harassment for the attempts at getting a mutual understanding. The purpose of the "registered user" part of your reply is not clear to me, since, as far as I understand, Wikipedia does not promote any kind of user-status duration discrimination in its guidelines, so seeing your appeal to this is pretty strange to say the least. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 6:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
No, you are not aware of how edit warring works, or you wouldn't continue to do it. Having "explicitly clarified reversions" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your edits will be considered edit warring, but rather if they're considered vandalism or not. If that's your impression so far, then it's a wrong one. - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the guidelines, it doesn't, however, as I said, in my experience, the presence of explicit explanations in edit summaries solves the problem, because editors immediately understand each other positions and, if one of them recognizes a personal mistake, the reversions stop. Also, let's be realistic: if the edit warnings were given every time more than three sequential reversions happened between a pair of editors on Wikipedia, the majority of the Wikipedia editors would have been blocked by now. These guidelines exist primarily for managing the most severe cases, when a series of destructive edits take place. I would also like to note that you ignored the majority of my reply. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 7:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@BilCat: By the way, I've made a case on it on the Tu-22M talk page, so, if you want, we can continue our discussion there. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 8:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've already posted it in the section, but I'd say it's better to avoid video sources, because they are next to impossible to preserve. If I find a textual version of this, I am going to post it instead. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Кстати, на русской вики очень много инфы на этот счет, в сжатом виде (3. Применение насилия против протестующих). Можно просто взять оттуда и перевести. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but, unfortunately, I am heading to bed now. However, I am pretty sure there are other editors who would disagree with the removal of this subsection due to "neutrality" issues. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm just sick and tired of these endless discussions. Will keep away of them as much as possible. P.S. Frankly, the Russian page looks much more pro-opposition than the English one, which is kind of weird. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus
Reformat data. You are a Belarusian vandal.
I maked a good edit.
This is Edit War I.
I've finally understood what you're trying to do here. You see, I have a script which calculates the necessary percentages automatically each time I update the template, so I actually have no need for the new formatting style. So, please, do not attempt to change it, because this would break the workflow for me (I'd have to either rewrite the script, or manually input the values). -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Template could calculate values on the right side automatically near 4 month ago already. Till just wanna know: Do you have substantial reasons against new modification, except "I have a script"? And, please, may I get link with you objections on template talk page? 185.66.252.219 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I objected to the proposed increase in the default number of rows, and, as far as I can tell, this autocalculation feature was not discussed there. As to the rest of your reply, I believe we have nothing to talk about, since you're not a maintainer of the template. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I definitly know template much-much better then you. You objected 4 months ago about "21-days button", but it's adjustable option such as another template parameters since May. And I did new template code with 15-day button to show you how-to.
At least 3 editors (me-185.66.xxx.xxx, 186.111.139.203 and Pietadè) clearly manifested we don't want old template code. It's not WP:VANDAL. And you are still going on WP:EDITWAR. I really don't want pull you out to WP:AN/I. Just let community decide what template code most preferable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.66.253.64 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any discussions about that neither on the Belarus' template talk page, nor on the on talk page of the default one, so I am not sure what consensus you are referring to. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equipment of the Egyptian Army
I would like you to please reverting edits when you have no reasons why , I have cited websites on each edit . The next time I will have to report you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vid2468 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines you're referring to do not apply to the situation, because neither the original material, nor the changes made by the IP editor are backed up by a reliable source, and the justification used by the IP editor is undoubtedly an original research, so the edit must be reverted. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not in a disagreement here, because I also think these arguments are irrelevant due to them being an original research, and I also think that this whole material must be sourced. However, I don't see how it is possible to justify a partial removal of an unsourced content. If the whole passage was removed in that edit, I wouldn't have any problems with it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is not how editing on Wikipedia works: there must be a reliable source explicitly stating that this pod is used on Egyptian Rafales. What you are talking about here is called original research and goes against the Wikipedia guidelines. Please, check them out. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Buidhe was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2020_Belarusian_protests#Human_rights_issues instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Human rights issues related to the suppression of the 2020 Belarusian protests, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Nicholas Velasquez!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! (t · c) buidhe01:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello Nicholas! You know the 186.111.128.0/20 IP range that used to sent death threats to you, right? The person who is behind these IP addresses are Bedriczwaleta. Like you, i'm also a victim of a death threat he sent to me after confronting him on his personal website (Type Design netlify apps - not linking it intentionally - i did it in attempt to get him back on track that obviously failed). Bedriczwaleta just got recently active again as the IP 190.246.118.103, i knew that IP was Bedriczwaleta because of his disruptive behavior when it comes to COVID-19 templates. Drmies said to you that if that editor hops from that IP address into the another, you can let them know. I mean, it's the SPI that he talks about. Since you know that IP is Bedriczwaleta, you could file a case against him in here. When i first interacted with him, his IP is 201.231.9.237. By the way, i know that if one of his IPs got unblocked, he will immediately jump into it and edit under these IPs (either 190.246.118.103, 201.231, or 186.111.128.0/20. 185.66.xxx.xxx or 212.252.xxx.xxx IP is not him at any case). He has no interest of getting unblocked (stay away for six months) nor following the Wikipedia policies. I have confronted him about it numerous times, even off-wiki, but he refuses to back down. He could have gotten the Resilient Barnstar had he is willing to follow policies afterwards, but he didn't. BTW, i'm here to let you know. Thank you, SMB99thxmy edits03:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for letting me know and for all this work tracking him. As I see, the sockpuppet investigation has already resulted in a re-block and is closed now, so it's good news. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMB99thx: I don't want to reply to the letter via e-mail, because I'd prefer not to disclose my address, so I'll do it here. In short, I think, there's absolutely nothing to worry about, since threats of this sort are a regularity on the Internet and, usually, a result of someone's inability to contain a sudden burst of frustration, rather than a prelude to some kind of an evil plan. So, the best thing to do here is to simply forget about it, continue doing your thing and give the threatener as little "emotional food" as possible by eliminating all contacts with him and stop attempting to change his mind, talk him out of something, let alone help him. All those things may very well be the fuel that keeps him going. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas Velasquez, I know. I have avoided interacting with that person for several weeks now. My parents also want me to avoid that person, too. I also recently started a LTA casepage (thanks, LSGH!) to help you fight against future Bedriczwaleta socks with my instructions while I'm going to back out fighting against these socks. It's too much for me now to handle, as I'm in college (and my thing on Wikipedia is drafts, not this) and I'm looking to pass the torch to somebody. SMB99thxmy edits07:09, 18 October 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.
Thank you for uploading File:RS-28 Sarmat.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.
Hi, why do you revert my commit? I've tried to unify style for the article, update wrong dates, and tried to fix portal bars. It's not your personal page, please don't revert useful commits anymore. Artem.G (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G: Hello, I've just thought of writing to you about this. There were multiple reasons for the revert: firstly, what you did to a bunch of "wikitable templates" (removal of the 61% scaling) causes the short paragraphs inside these to be expanded to the full width of the reader's screen, which makes the timetable unnecessarily uncomfortable to read and inconsistent in terms of expanded width in comparison to the previous months; secondly, you've decided to "collapse" the last month's template in the timetable, probably thinking that it was forgotten to do so, but it was actually done intentionally, so that the latest sources for the "medical template" on the right side of the article could be easily checked by the reader, if necessary; thirdly, you moved the "References" section below the "External links" section, which is unconventional for Wikipedia; and lastly, you did not provide an edit summary when adding "portal bars" (or whatever that was), so it was difficult to understand what you was trying to achieve. I do believe these were good faith edits, though, so, please, don't think there is some sort of a conflict. It's just that what you did there was not carefully though out. Best regards. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair points, maybe my edits were not so good. Anyway, the dates for the last two monthes are wrong (should be 2021), and both portal bars and references aren't properly used, because it's viewed as a Templates in a browser. Artem.G (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G: The correct date fixes of yours were re-added by me after the revert, so it's fine now. As to the templates, this article has a problem with too many templates per page, which causes some of them to improperly render (such as the one responsible for references). This can be easily solved by creating a separate page for the "Timeline" section (as it has been done in some other COVID-related articles), but, unfortunately, I have not that much free time for this, so the article has been in a broken state for a while now. If you want to help fixing this issue, please, consider creating a separate page for the "Timetable" and moving it there. You can check out examples of such pages here. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G: Thank you. Unfortunately, it seems like it's a bit harder to fix than I thought: we're going to have to unwrap everything and remove the medical template from the new timeline page, because otherwise the "References" section won't render. It looks kinda ugly, but at least it would now be possible for a reader to check the references without going into the page source code. Maybe it's still fixable by some other means, but I can't think of any as of now. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it is possible to have both all these months collapsed and a working "References" section, so the page is much more readable now. Once again, thanks for creation of this separate page. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third of a million COVId deaths in Belarus?
Hi, looking at today's Belarus figures I have a suspicion that deaths and recovered got swapped over. Just to be cautious I have gone back to the previous day. If we do suddenly have a third of a million deaths there I'd expect a bunch of other sources about a highly lethal new variant, but hopefully it was just one of those transpositions we all make from time to time. Would you mind double checking your source? ϢereSpielChequers19:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing this. For some reason, a script I use for scraping these values and generating the wikitext swapped these values over. Going to look into it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 and edits about COVID-19. 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.
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.
Standard notice for users editing articles related to Eastern European topics
Hi, Nicholas Velasquez, everyone editing in this topic area eventually gets one of these; here's one for you. Please read it, and follow the links:
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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 ~~~~}}.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
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.
