User talk:Obelixobelix

April 2014

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits 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. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

User:Wizardman can not take criticism. Anybody with basic english knowledge knows that we use the word "dead" with less respect (eg: "my dog died on wednesday"), and we use the phrase "passed away" for humans to give more respect. Unfortunately User:Wizardman does not know it, and is not even ready to admit his ignorance. It is not about a block, but about whether this person is rightly entitled with this power to block other users? Furthermore, he has used the reason Vandalism-only account to enforce ban. Is this the correct reason? The correct reason must be His ignorance revealed and his pride got hurt. Then that would be correct i would be happy that the ban was in-place.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Seeing your misuse of an unblock request as a means of launching a personal attack, I thought it might help to post you friendly note warning that doing so again might lead to loss of talk page access. Before doing that, however, I checked your editing history, and saw how much of your recent editing consisted of personal attacks, so I was thinking of perhaps a more firmly-worded warning. Then, however, I saw the edit summary with your last edit, and that removed any element of doubt. There is no way that you can possibly have thought that was acceptable, and you are clearly beyond the stage of needing to be warned. I have removed your talk page access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note for any future reviewing admin: see also Special:Contributions/117.221.177.121. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Indian states and union territories ranked by riots rate

The article Indian states and union territories ranked by riots rate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article rests entirely on a single primary source: a list of crime statistics from the relevant national bureau. There is nothing to indicate that this particular statistic is of encyclopedic value, or that this list has received coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]