User talk:DaDefeender

I also notice that there are illegitimate edits/removal of sourced content, if perhaps User:DaDefeender could stop doing this it would be very welcome indeed. Metamentalist (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia editor, please use the talk page under the section January 2024 to highlight which reference is biased or needs to be substantiated. Referencing with numbers doesn't work after the text has been deleted. Kindly also refrain from deleting the text without proper discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaeel1992 (talk • contribs)

You have recently edited a page related to

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

• If you are engaged in an article
  article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards
  .
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. VirtualVagabond (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VirtualVagabond (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 13:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaDefeender! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Dekimasuよ! 03:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your next edit after this notification was an edit removing a cited "controversy" section from an article, but you marked the edit as minor. Note that this can be considered a form of

disruptive editing, which can result in additional blocks. Dekimasuよ! 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nadeem Anjum. You have already been blocked by committing disruptive edits at the Asim Munir page, disruptive edits still carry the same weight, even if you commit it on another page. Use the talk page if you disagree with something. VirtualVagabond (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account is being investigated to see if it is a Sockpuppet of @WaseemAbbaass.

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WaseemAbbaass. Thank you. VirtualVagabond (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:WaseemAbbaass per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WaseemAbbaass. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]