User talk:000meow

Extended confirmed status

I've removed your extended confirmed status. To get it back you'll need to make at least 500 productive edits in uncontentious areas of the encyclopedia and then make a request here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Note that until you regain extended confirmed status there are pages that you actually cannot edit, but there will be other pages that you can edit but you are not allowed to edit parts of those pages relating to the conflict. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loose000

Hi-- You seem to have some overlapping editing activity with this user. If you're using multiple accounts, be sure to read WP:SOCK. Eperoton (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated the user pages of both account. 000meow (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOCK says "Editors who want to use more than one account for some valid reason should provide links between them on the respective user pages (see below), with an explanation of the purpose of each account or of the relationship between them." You haven't given a valid reason - there's a list of valid reasons on the same page -do any of them apply? Of course the discretionary sanctions alert above applies to both accounts. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - My aim was to retire this account so now I place the {{retired}} tag on the user page. 000meow (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on leads 2 months ago

[1] had an edit summary saying "(According to MOS:BEGIN, lead does not include criticism so moved it to appropriate place which is the start of second paragraph" but the actual text mentioning criticism says "All but the shortest articles should start with Introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more." Doug Weller talk 14:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of PIA Township for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PIA Township is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIA Township until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]