User talk:Noticeboard issues

October 2022

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sivananda Radha Saraswati, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bhava samadhi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Krishnananda Saraswati, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Harbhajan Singh Khalsa. You did not give a valid reason for your removal of the COI template. Adakiko (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recents changes to Sivananda Radha Saraswati

Hello, Noticeboard issues. I've noticed you've made some rather bold edits to the aforementioned Wikipedia page. You also claimed to have substanial knowledge about the the aggreved and aggrivating parties. May I ask if you have some sort of connection with either of these parties? BlueNoise (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Noticeboard issues. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You seem to have an issue with various Yoga related articles, and have called several fraudsters. This is an unusual editing pattern, one that implies that you have a direct connection to the topics you edit. May I please ask how you are connected to these communities and individuals? Netherzone (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not be crass, but I'm beginning to think this is either a single-purpose account issue or a competency issue. I've left my own version of the same question, but the editor does not seem interested in discussing their edits. BlueNoise (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communication is required

Please see the explanatory essay wp:Communication is required. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Glen (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patanjali Project. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Patanjali Project per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patanjali Project. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 14:10, 4 October 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Noticeboard issues (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Does not address reason for block. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:34, 8 October 2022 (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.