Jump to content

User talk:TheNajmahal1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Sasannajmi)

Welcome!

Hello, TheNajmahal1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Politicrunch (March 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was: 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.
Chetsford (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Sasannajmi! 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! Chetsford (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Politicrunch

[edit]

Hello, Sasannajmi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Politicrunch".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lupin VII (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edits a second time in the Graham Linehan article per WP:BRD. Please use the talk page of that article to discuss the changes you want to apply. Isabelle 🔔 14:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Graham Linehan 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sasannajmi reported by User:Bastun (Result: ). Thank you. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notifications

[edit]

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

FDW777 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 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 articles about 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.

FDW777 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Graham Linehan, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Graham Linehan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2021 (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).

TheNajmahal1 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Fact-based edits were made to the page to include referencing and not to misleadingly label public figures without any referencing whatsoever. With exception of perhaps one sentence/reference, which dealt with relevant background info. (and I agree, would be fine to delete), evidence will clearly indicate that I have added to the support for the text of the article while removing baseless statements and non-fact-based assertions which tend to give the article an ideological bent, which should be absent from a Wikipedia article.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:3RR, but do not address that with this request. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2021 (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.