Jump to content

User talk:VarunFEB2003: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
<!--Below This Line Please-->
<!--Below This Line Please-->

== Since verbal warnings don't seem to be having any effect on you, maybe this will get your attention ==

[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|left|30px]]
Please stop making [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]]. You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy |blocked from editing]] without further warning''' if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia.
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
As the bot will shortly archive it, drawing your attention to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&type=revision&diff=739974897&oldid=739973575 my comments here]. Will you ''please'' stop trying to intervene in administrative areas you don't understand; as a request for a reduction in protection, this was correctly formatted and in the correct section. Nobody wants to lose a potentially productive contributor, but when you're wandering around giving incorrect advice and making disruptive comments to the degree that you do, there comes a point when the productive edits you make are outweighed by the work expended in cleaning up after you, and in the opportunity cost of editors who get discouraged or confused by your incorrect advice.

Wikipedia is an academic resource, not a videogame, and you don't gain any kind of bonus points for participating in obscure areas. The admins welcome genuine help, but only when it's actually helpful, and (as has been told to you repeatedly) you don't understand Wikipedia's technical setup or administrative structure well enough to be giving commentary in administrative areas at the moment. If you want to be a part of Wikipedia, find a topic which interests you and write sourced and neutral content about it. Don't try to intervene in administrative areas unless you actually understand the issue under discussion, don't offer commentary on articles written by other people unless you feel reasonably confident that you understand the article topic at least as well as the authors of the page, don't cite any policy without having read the policy in question to the extent that you would feel confident summarising the policy in your own words. I know you're keen and want to help, and we don't want to lose you, but you've spent most of your Wikipedia career ignoring a lot of warnings from a lot of people, and there comes a point when if you're not willing to stop being disruptive, someone else will have to stop it for you.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 08:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:45, 18 September 2016

Please sign your message.
Sunshine

Varun - Talk Page
CVUA & Adoption Center Desk   Talk Page   Scripts Desk
Welcome to my talk page
  1. When posting here please assume good faith and maintain civility. Click here to start a new discussion.
  2. Please be specific. Comments like "Why did you make that edit?" will get us both nowhere. Which edit? To what article?
  3. And finally, please sign your posts. You can do this by putting four tildes at the end of your post like this: (~~~~)
  4. Do not expect a prompt response if my status above is not 'online' I live in New Delhi, India and the time at my place is 4:16 PM Refresh the time

Thanks — VarunFEB2003



Since verbal warnings don't seem to be having any effect on you, maybe this will get your attention

Please stop making disruptive edits. You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia.

As the bot will shortly archive it, drawing your attention to my comments here. Will you please stop trying to intervene in administrative areas you don't understand; as a request for a reduction in protection, this was correctly formatted and in the correct section. Nobody wants to lose a potentially productive contributor, but when you're wandering around giving incorrect advice and making disruptive comments to the degree that you do, there comes a point when the productive edits you make are outweighed by the work expended in cleaning up after you, and in the opportunity cost of editors who get discouraged or confused by your incorrect advice.

Wikipedia is an academic resource, not a videogame, and you don't gain any kind of bonus points for participating in obscure areas. The admins welcome genuine help, but only when it's actually helpful, and (as has been told to you repeatedly) you don't understand Wikipedia's technical setup or administrative structure well enough to be giving commentary in administrative areas at the moment. If you want to be a part of Wikipedia, find a topic which interests you and write sourced and neutral content about it. Don't try to intervene in administrative areas unless you actually understand the issue under discussion, don't offer commentary on articles written by other people unless you feel reasonably confident that you understand the article topic at least as well as the authors of the page, don't cite any policy without having read the policy in question to the extent that you would feel confident summarising the policy in your own words. I know you're keen and want to help, and we don't want to lose you, but you've spent most of your Wikipedia career ignoring a lot of warnings from a lot of people, and there comes a point when if you're not willing to stop being disruptive, someone else will have to stop it for you. ‑ Iridescent 08:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]