User talk:Dympies

Hello, Dympies, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Maratha empire did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  regentspark (comment) 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just because a map exists on commons, it doesn't follow that you can use it here. Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia and that sourcing policy applies to everything, including maps. --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the map I used doesn't have any major discrepancy, why should it be not used in wiki articles? The 1758 map I am talking about was always there in Maratha Empire article. I don't know how and when it got removed. I just restored that map. The relevance of that map is that it belongs to 1758, the short period when Maratha Empire was at its peak with extent stretching to Pak-Afghan border. If we have some better map for 1758, then we may use it instead. Otherwise, I don't find any major issue with this map. -Dympies (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dympies, I have removed your re-addition of the maps. Though your edit-summary said "The present maps also have sources provided" that is not true for File:South Asia 1758 AD.jpg, which has even been tagged with 'A self fabricated hoax map based on 0 sources. Its packed with errors. For example, tt shows empires which didn't even exist at the time.' for over three years. The map is also inconsistent with the second map you added for the empire (in 1759). As for the second map: as far as I can tell, it is a copyright violation and will need to be deleted from Commons. In general, when your edits are reverted, it is a recommended to discuss the issue with the other editors instead of simply repeating the disputed edits; see WP:BRD.

Finally, you added two sources in your recent edits, which is great. But can you check out this guide for properly formatting references and also make sure that the source content exactly matches what it is being cited for (in meaning, not words). Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2020 (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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 07:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 things should be clear to you.

(1) There is no such consensus to not add it there. Discussion is not over at the page you linked.

(2) Whatever may be the final consensus at the end of the discussion need not apply to all pages of wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Talk:2022 Maharashtra political crisis#Undue and subjective addition, it is clear that you should not be adding this text anywhere on those articles where you had added it. Demand for a new discussion on every single page over same content is nothing more than gaming against consensus for which you have been warned.  Dympies (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ONUS. Please stop edit warring to introduce controversial content that violates BLP. This exact line is up for RfC discussion, please wait for consensus to emerge before editing it. RfC link Talk:Murder_of_Kanhaiya_Lal#RfC_about_Attari's_infiltration_in_BJP --Venkat TL (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Yono Lite, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mundka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:03, 22 September 2022 (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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Venkat TL (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one who is claiming "affected his career". Why are you claiming that? I have started 2 threads you can respond there, for WP:Consensus Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syed Ali Shah Geelani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jammu and Kashmir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2022 (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 the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies, I am sure you acted in good faith, but with the greatest respect, please do not add a section to this page about Amarkot. It was not “pretty much a state” at the time of the partition of India, it was part of the Thar and Parkar district of the Sind Province of British India. It had no local ruler who had the right to accede to either new dominion, it simply became part of Pakistan as a result of the Indian Independence Act 1947. Moonraker (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to refer the sources here. Give me some time to look into this. Dympies (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rajput, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NWFP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Admantine123. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk.[1] While Editing Meena caste page, you removed this source from Indian history Congress,which is generally considered of good quality. Admantine123 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Razer(talk) 12:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Unsource oral history of the community did not apply to all Indian Subcontinent. Please change this. The history contain only local perceptions in scenario of Bihar not whole Indian Subcontinent state. It should to modify Unsourced history. ARJ 21:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarjeetkr97 (talk • contribs)

Amarjeetkr97, which article are you referring to? Dympies (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Meena, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Bishonen | tålk 11:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinitely topic-banned from all content and discussions related to Rajputs, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for long-term POV-pushing and tendentious editing based on subpar sources at Rajput as discussed at User talk:Bishonen. For example, the slow edit-warring over months to add undue and disputed content ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), which you then re-positioned to highlight it over scholars' evaluation and dismissal of such content; repeated use of primary and subpar sources and wikilawyering to ignore feedback based on "wrong venue" argument; etc. I considered a page-block but your edits at Chamar (eg), Rajputisation (eg) and Rajputs in Bihar (eg) show how easily the POV issues can bleed out to other related articles. Have, however, kept the topic-ban as narrow as reasonable for the moment.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Added "indefinitely" in the above notification to avoid any confusion about the duration. Abecedare (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Languages listed as Hindi dialects in latest Census indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw you reverting some of my edits, which were sourced. That article is not a caste article, but a surname article. The caste article pertaining to that article is Koeri. You may observe many such surname articles like Tripathi, Pathak and others. They wrote things even without any source supporting them, but here you are removing even the sourced stuff.-Admantine123 (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mali, Saini, Kushwaha, Maurya communities have a significant population in Rajasthan. All these communities are the same, but known under different names in various regions. We are also demanding that a caste census be conducted to ascertain our exact population. We are deprived of representation in various fields, which at present are not proportionate to our population,” said Shankar Lal Saini, the state president of Mahatma Phule Brigade, an outfit of the Mali community.

You also avoided this, which was mentioned in that Indian express article.It can be interpreted to write something like this: "The caste based organisation of xyz social group in recent times have been working for unity with abc social group.-Admantine123 (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, Reading Maurya (surname), it doesn't give an impression that its a surname based article. Typical surname articles aren't supposed to contain so much information about the parent communities/castes. In this article, Maurya has been talked of as a community. As far as Indian Express source is concerned, it mentions an opinion of a community leader. We cannot give an undue weight to the opinion of a caste leader here. You need to find some academic source to link Rajasthan-based Malis with UP-Bihar based Maurya community. Dympies (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They (Malis) are themselves linking with Kushwaha and Maurya. There is a perfect way to include this quote as well. Will do later.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Herschelle Gibbs, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dympies (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading D.P Yadav article. Jitendra Yadav, whose son is married to Ragini Yadav, daughter of Lalu Prasad Yadav. Is there any relation between Jitendra Yadav and D.P Yadav?. Although I found sources which says that there is a nephew of DP Yadav named Jitendra Yadav. But none of the sources are available to clarify that that jitendra yadav and this jitendra yadav whose son is married to Lalu's daughter is same.-Admantine123 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, there is certainly some link between DP Yadav and Jitendra Yadav. This source says that both hail from the same village. This one calls Jitendra DP Yadav's nephew. Dympies (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also read that source, which says that they hail from same village. But,that one is also not clear on relation. Also, DP Yadav must be in his 50s. His sons were convicted in murder of Jesica Lal and Nitish Katara. I saw the photos of both, they are young boys. I don't believe that D.P Yadav's nephew has a son who is married to Ragini Yadav. It means sending him to their third generation. For now, I have removed that stuff, to be readded when we get a source clarifying it.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second news you are talking about, there exists other newspaper stuff on that news, in which I saw the photo of Jitendra Yadav. That Jitendra Yadav is a young guy.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed your RfC because the statement was not neutral. Feel free to re-add it with a neutral statement. For example, you should say "Should we include the following statement in Narendra Modi. Then give the statement. You can then indicate the reasons for inclusion in your "support" !vote. RegentsPark (comment) 18:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RegentsPark. I will re-add with a changed language. Dympies (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my notice. These Deol family articles need to be patrolled to ensure compliance of BLP policy. Dympies (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dympies. Thank you for your work on Kirtilata. User:Schminnte, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

You may want to expand the article with this reference: [12]

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Schminnte}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that talk page guidelines do not allow us to change posts after people have replied to then, in this instance a conversation had ensued between editors below your post. You my however post below the conversation or open a new thread below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my mistake. I was aware that my comment was incomplete. So, I went on to fix it without realising other editors had arrived in the discussion. Didn't expect such prompt comments from other editors. Dympies (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want your opinion on this Kushwaha. Recently a WP:SPA came to my talk page and warned me that I have omitted the word Kachhwaha from the subcaste of Kushwaha community. As per my understanding the authors like william pinch and others must have mentioned Kachhi caste as Kachhwaha, which call themselves so, as the subcaste of Kushwaha and there is no relation between Rajput Kachhwaha of Jaipur and them. But the user was adamant and anyhow included the word Kachhwaha in the lead. He was saying that he is not linking it with Kachhwaha of Jaipur and that's how he chose to differentiate them. Recently i reverted an edit by another user who was trying to link them. No author have said that Kachhwaha, William pinch refered to, were those of Jaipur. If you are interested, please keep a tab on the page to revert the edits of users who are trying to link them. Admantine123 (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, if William Punch is the only writer using the term "Kachhvaha" for Kushwaha, you may remove it citing WP:FRINGE. That would prevent an unnecessary confusion between "Kushawaha" and the said Jaipur group. Dympies (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, some users trying to merge them but it's not factually correct. Admantine123 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123 have Vandalized the Saini Caste page and Has added Fake info he is Trying to Mix up the Mali Saini and Saini Caste of Shoorsaini. He also have Vandalized the Mali Saini Page by adding Personalities of Shoorsaini/Saini Lineage. Please see if you can you something about this. SikkaSingh (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dympies, I reverted your addition of what appears to be poorly-sourced contentious content at this CTOPs BLP article, which is currently being discussed at BLPN, where you participated before restoring the disputed content. Please also note this content may be 'broadly related' to your TBAN given the caste-related nature of the article content. However, the administrator who imposed the TBAN, Abecedare, participated in the AfD for this article, so you likely need to ask another administrator for clarification. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban was about Rajputs which has nothing to do with this topic of an Indian writer. Dympies (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies, you now appear to be potentially edit-warring, contrary to WP:BLPUNDEL. Please note there is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Beccaynr_reported_by_User:Aman.kumar.goel_(Result:_) where your conduct will be noted. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dympies, the BLP issue has been clearly discussed at the BLP Noticeboard while you have participating, including after Black Kite indicated "there is a BLP concern." I request that you please stop reverting this disputed contentious content back into the article, including according to WP:BLPUNDEL, and participate in the discussion instead of edit warring. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are placed under an indefinite one-account restriction, and the accounts Yoonadue and Togggle are blocked indefinitely. Your Rajput topic ban is rescinded and replaced with an indefinite topic ban from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple notes for you, Dympies. First, since this is your main account now, you might want to change your user page. Second, I want to re-iterate that the TBAN is broadly construed, and to encourage you to check with an admin if you're ever unsure if a particular page or edit is covered. Both your continued standing in the community and the likelihood of a successful future appeal depend on keeping your nose clean. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about the lead sentence is on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Shambuka. Request your inputs. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Omega-3 fatty acid, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Re: your edits on obesity, hair and sexual health - read WP:MEDRS for the quality of sources needed. Medical News Today is an unreliable site owned by Healthline which is blacklisted on Wikipedia. Zefr (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zefr, you need to elaborate your objections on Medical News Today. I know Healthline was deemed unreliable here but there hasn't been a similar ruling on Medical News Today. Though Healthline Media acquired Medical News Today in 2016, we still can't consider both as equals. It was reported that Healthline Media purchased the U.K.-based Medical News Today in 2016 and has folded it into its portfolio while retaining its distinctive voice. Dympies (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better that you read and follow WP:MEDRS as the guide for choosing sources for medical content. MNT articles 1) are linked to a subscription request (WP:PROMO), 2) report nonsense on unverified health claims, 3) are not WP:RS, 4) are written by non-expert bloggers, and 5) contain links to other Healthline spam. Zefr (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better that you report "Medical News Today" and get it blacklisted through community. After that, removing sourced content and lecturing others about WP:RS would make more sense. Dympies (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Omega-3 fatty acid, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You seem to be having difficulty understanding the need for WP:MEDRS sources for medical content. Your second attempt to discuss hair effects with a source from rat studies is not useful, WP:MEDANIMAL. Also, PubMed is a listing service, not a journal or a source for the encyclopedia. See this. Zefr (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]