User talk:Burhanhusain

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. PolenCelestial (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about the Dawoodi Bohra are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done any edit warring. I just reverted false edits by User:PolenCelestial on Dawoodi Bohra page. Please refer to talk page of Dawoodi Bohra for more information, about his distruptive editings. Thank you. --Burhanhusain (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a verifiable source that my edits are false. The citations I included make the information suitable for Wikipedia.

PolenCelestial (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm Qwertyus. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Ramiericson (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 20:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]