User talk:Collectionsocial

Hello, I'm Amberrock. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Subi without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page World Youth Organization has been reverted.
Your edit here to World Youth Organization was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.twitter.com/worldyoutho) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 02:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't taking part in any vandalism, the information provided on the page before was false, I corrected it as it had misleading information about an unregistered non-profit organisation based in India. Sorry if it came across that way. Collectionsocial (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page World Youth Organization, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to World Youth Organization was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.twitter.com/worldyoutho) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{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.

—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 02:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Collectionsocial (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am new to Wikipedia and was making important changes to a page, now the page has been reverted back through a bot due to content mistakes, I would like to revert it however but I am currently blocked. I am sorry, please can you unblock me so I can revert my edit. Collectionsocial (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You over-wrote an article about an organisation in India with content about a different, but similarly named, organisation in Britain. You can scarcely have failed to notice that the existing article was about a different organisation than the one you were writing about. Either you realised full well what you were doing, and knowingly hijacked the article, in which case your editing was dishonest, or else you are unable to realise that the existence of an article about an organisation in India suggests that there probably actually are two organisations of that name, in which case your editing was incompetent. Either way, since your stated intention is to repeat your disruptive editing when unblocked, there can be no question of unblocking you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You removed the mention of Subi as a WYO founder despite multiple sources (like the Indian government or the org itself) saying that this is really the case. Could you explain that? Max Semenik (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]