User talk:Ceipt

So it would seem I have a new follower. Can you please explain why articles on Pakistan are supposed to prefer US/UK units, as you implicitly argue in this diff [1]? This is not the consensus position of this encyclopedia according to WP:MOSNUM. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need to warn you very clearly: reverting to a non-MOS-compliant style is "problematic", and can potentially result in sanctions. Your stated reasons for reverting are not valid and they contravene the explicit guidance given in the MOS. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can't find the template, but consider this your notification. You have been accused of potential sockpuppetry and your case is being discussed here: [2] Archon 2488 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Ceipt (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the United Kingdom. Before continuing to make edits that involve units or systems of measurement in United Kingdom-related contexts, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]