User talk:Pebble101

Hello, Pebble101! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Akerans (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Khasas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Indo-Aryan, Kulu, Sirmaur, Kangra and Mandi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Gagra choli has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The website is recognized by wikipedia as CC http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Indianetzone Including http://www.4to40.com/history/index.asp?p=Gupta_Period_Early_Fourth_to_Mid-Eighth_Centuary_A.D.

• I assume you mean that you copied the information from indianetzone, which releases its content under a free Creative Commons license. I found the content on a page at http://www.4to40.com, with a copyright notice saying "all rights reserved". However, even if the material is validly published at indianetzone, as you seem to be implying, that site licenses article content under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's use of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your point.Retained the gallery.WikiMan88 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Body piercing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ganesh Chaturthi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tamil

Ganesha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tamil

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gagra choli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Indian religions may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. 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) 18:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pebble101. You may not be aware of this but the current set of images in the article were added after a long, multi-stage, consensus seeking process. Please don't add any images without first seeking consensus. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for your informative comment regentspark.

Please do not remove ongoing discussions from talk pages unless they are on your own user talk page. Also, there's a discussion going on regarding the images, please do not repeatedly try to add images to the article pending the outcome of that discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 03:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, Spaceman. I'll add images to the gallery i have created in the future instead.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Indo-Aryan peoples page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Indo-Aryan peoples. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Indi-Aryan migration theory does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indo-Aryan peoples. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that I doubt that the average reader could understand your edits, the problems with the English and doubts about how relevant it all is, we have a guideline for era style at WP:ERA. This is a BCE article and you are using an era style that I don't recognise, YBP. There is of course BP, but that can only be used if the source does and candy be translated directly into calendar years. Please fix this as I don't plan to check your sources. I presume you have actually read your sources and only used material from the summary or discussion spect ions. If that's not the case then you shouldn't be using them. Doug Weller (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YBP = years before the present. And, yes it is mentioned in the source. YBP is used in both genealogy and geology studies.

Why isn't it relevant? It's simplified yet detailed information of early migrations of various population into subcontinent along with all major haplogroups found in Indian-subcontinent today. Pebble101 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

—SpacemanSpiff

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indo-Aryan peoples. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —SpacemanSpiff 19:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Pebble101 reported by User:SpacemanSpiff (Result: ). Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 20:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble101, I think you have gone insane! You just edit-warred with 5 different editors, including an ARBCOM member? What is wrong with you? - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Indo-Aryan peoples. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  slakr^\ talk / 02:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pebble101. Thank you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble101, you have not yet made any comments on the SPI. You would be well-advised to do that before an admin starts the investigation.

While there is nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia while logged out, you cannot edit the same pages that have edited while logged in, making it appear as if different individuals ("SOCKS") are editing. You can fix this by self-declaring. Please check all the IP addresses that I have listed in the SPI and put a pointer to your regular user page from their home pages. (Joshua Jonathan and I have already done this for a couple of IP addresses where you self-declared.)

You need to do this quite urgently. Otherwise you are likely to get a really long block once the SPI investigation is completed.

You should also do this for any other IP addresses you might have used, irrespective of whether I listed them or not. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a post here regarding that issue - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pebble101

Please never restore material that has been deleted as a copyright violation, instead ask the person who deleted it why. I've been doing this for years, and have clarified both at Slakr's talk page and Talk:Haplogroup F-M89#Copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yet you have used same sengupta study to source F2 while ignoring F*-M89 at 5.2% in over all Indian population according to the study under 'The Phylogeny of South Asian Y-Chromosome Binary HGs.

I will add F*-M89 5.2% in India along with the source in F*

Also, under 'Origins' there is no source for F2 being found in all those groups mentioned on the list expect for Lahu people in sengupta study and 9.3% in unspecified ethnic groups. That's why i'm changing it to just F, since they most linkly carry other F clads too.

I haven't used any sources, that would be someone else. Doug Weller (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you seem to have moved the source from 'origins' to F2, which can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=685400312&oldid=684059217

This addition looks immature to me, i'll simplify it with source.

Pebble101, Doug Weller is one of the seniormost editors on Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to address him like this.

Doug is only trying to enforce policy, WP:COPYVIO and WP:RS. He is not claiming to be a subject expert. I don't find anything inappropriate in his edits given the COPYVIO issue. You are welcome to rewrite the text so that COPYVIO is removed.

Please also make an effort to discuss issues on the article talk pages instead of reinstating material that has been reverted. You should not be putting long conversations in the edit summaries. See WP:BRD for what to do when an edit is reverted.

We have been quite patient with you, assuming good faith. From now on, I intend to report any policy violations that you make, including edit-warring. So please be careful. All the best. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm guessing that Pebble101 doesn't understand what I did. A paper whose first editor is named Sengupta was used as a reference for both the copyvio I removed and, despite what Pebble101 says, for FT - that's what the "<ref name="Sengupta"/>" in "**'''F2''' (M427, M428) - among [[Lahu people]] (China).<ref name="Sengupta"/> means. But as I'd removed the entire source details with my edit, I moved them to define "<ref name="Sengupta"/>" - otherwise the reference would have been broken. The reference was ways there. And you are still doing original research in changing sourced material to just "F" on your assumption. I'm not at all surprised to find that sourced material is inaccurate, people often change sourced material without looking to see wht the source says.

Statements such as "Please Note: The preceding estimate uses a 2008 paper as cite, while 2015 papers are rapidly improving knowledge. More up-to-date sources (including Wikipedia!) may show (46,000 to 52,000) years ago for the TMRCA of F-M89, near western India." have no place in an encyclopedia - it's just your personal observation and once again, you can't use us as a source. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at that article are WP:NOR#original research and not encyclopedic in any case. Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references for genetics articles have very long lists of authors. Putting them inline in the article text makes it harder to read the text. So I have been moving them to the bottom (the so-called list-defined references). You can see this on Genetic history of South Asia and Haplogroup F-M89. Please follow this convention from now on, i.e., do not add full references in the middle of article text. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Indian people, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Caution for undiscussed removal of cntent. Your edit removed a lot more than just information about the caste system. Discuss it on the talk page of the article, and get support from other editors before removing it again. Thomas.W ^talk 11:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Indian people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're being given this warning since it's obvious that you are the same user as the IP-hopper. If you wish I can file a sock puppet report, and let the people at WP:SPI deal with it, or you can simply stop removing content without prior discussion. The choice is yours. Thomas.W ^talk 11:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above discussion on this talk page about Copyright-violation sourced study with User:Doug_Weller regarding sengupta study, which was removed by himself. I'm only undoing the copyright viliation in good faith the sources were added by me and i'm only undoing my mistakes.

It was removed by user User:Doug_Weller in other places as well due to copyright violation regarding the original study which was sourced through copy-paste - It's should be removed until the topic is resolved. Also here is the conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slakr#Pebble101 that was discussed. I hope this clear things.

• Judging by the page history and the diffs the material that you have repeatedly removed is NOT the same material that Doug Weller removed, the copyrighted material he removed was in fact added by you, as a number of related IPs. Thomas.W ^talk 12:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, The entire thing was removed in other pages as well! you can ask User:Doug_Weller about it. I only removed the rest because it was all sourced by sengupta study through copy-paste, which he also pointed out as copyright violation here aswell. I din't know it would be a copy-right violation then.

The edit itself was created and sourced by me but i would like to wait until User:Doug_Weller, me and few others resolve this copy-right violation and content source, that's why i removed it in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs)

Pebble101, please sign your posts, otherwise pings don't work. But to clarify, what you are saying is that you removed all the content you added as an IP or as yourself because that may contain the same problem that Doug Weller identified with what he removed? —SpacemanSpiff 12:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a post here regarding that issue - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pebble101

I can't long in at Uni during the day but do make edits logged on past 5 when i'm home. I have also mentioned this to many users on here. I'll make sure to leave my user name in summery when i do. Pebble101 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The genetic material does seem to have copyvio concerns. For example, the sentence "the presence of ..." is lifted verbatim from the source. However, that does not explain the removal of the material from other sections. Pebble101, technically, including your IP edits, you're already at 4 reverts. Whatever the reason, please curb your tendency to edit war because you're looking at longer term - soon heading toward indefinite - blocks. --regentspark (comment) 12:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Doug Weller about it, he removed it everywhere and the entire section was created and sourced by me. But, I'm willing to wait until we resolve this copyvio issue.

Here is our discussion on the topic and he points out flaws regarding source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slakr#Pebble101 I agree with him on some of those Pebble101 (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to you at the SPI, but I'll say the same thing here, to make sure you see it. To say that some of the IPs are from you (how are we supposed to know which the some are?), and to tell users about it when they confront you isn't enough. I for one don't blame you for editing logged out when it's impractical to log in, but what you need to do, in the interest of transparency and honesty, is to say it's you ("This is Pebble101") in the edit summary every time you edit from an IP from now on. That would clear things up. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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. Thank you. Thomas.W ^talk 12:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I should have explained myself better instead of edit warring and getting blocked, sorry. The genetic section that you keep reverting back was removed in good faith due to copyright violation and unclear sources as pointed out by Doug Weller. That section itself was created and sourced by me and i only removed it as it was pointed out in detail about it being copyright violation and unclear sources.

Here is a list of flaws on copyright violation and unclear sources as pointed out by Doug Weller, which you keep reverting back. I agree with him on some of those flaws.

The version you have reverted back contains copyvio and unclear sources which is not mentioned in actual source. If you still have any doubts regarding this topic, you should leave a message on Doug Weller talk page and we can discuss it further. I was only undoing my mistakes, which was in good faith. I hope this clears things. Pebble101 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule and also block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. You are not allowed to violate WP:3RR even if you think you're right, and even if the issue is being discussed. Indeed, the fact that it's being discussed is all the more reason for not edit warring. You should know 3RR is a "bright-line rule", since you've been blocked for the same thing before.  Bishonen | talk 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

WP:1RR on all articles related to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan for a period of 3 months

You have been sanctioned due to repeated edit warring combined with block evasion

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 procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pebble101. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]