User talk:Wikiexplorer13

ARBIPA sanctions alert[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in no way whatsoever violate the policy and standards of behavior of Wikipedia. Please refer to the discussion talk page if you have any further issues. Vandalism will not be tolerated. Thanks. Wikiexplorer13 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop your long established vandalism please[edit]

You have been warned before on the Talk:Criticism of Sikhism page about removing cited content for no reason (or false reasons). Just because you and other Sikh IPs don't like criticism of your religion that doesn't give you the right to vandalise the article. Suggestion: if you can't defend your religion other than through blanket removal of cited content then perhaps you should look for a new religion. 124.219.222.43 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning before i report you to be blocked. You have vandalised this article for too long to suit your sectarianism. Why do you keep justifying your vandalism with nonsensical comments and excuses? eg. you recently wrote in one of your edit summaries "Reverted back to last edit as per earlier discussion. Also, note that this page is not related to India Pakistan relationship." India? Pakistan? What do these have to do with any of our discussions? What are you talking about? 124.210.27.243 (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to ChattBir Zoo. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. The material you are adding is unreferenced, unencyclopedic, and promotional. Please refrain from adding it back. Quasar G ^{t - c} 08:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ChattBir Zoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White tigers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at ChattBir Zoo, you may be blocked from editing. What you are adding to the article violates WP:NOPROMO and WP:NOTCATALOG. — Quasar G. 09:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was in no way written in a promotional tone, however due to your arrogant behavior and edit warring I have decided not to include some general information.

File:Map of Chattbir Zoo.jpeg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Map of Chattbir Zoo.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiexplorer13. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]