User talk:107.3.117.228/Archive 1

Templates and boxes

Dear Colleague,

1. Thank you very much for the Geologic history template, well done. It was a very useful addition.
2. The tables showing sub-periods showing epochs and ages are, however, not needed. We have discussed the general issue of detail on this wiki a number of times. The understanding is that we will not go into such detail as English wiki on technical matters. It is not just a matter of language, it is a general plan to keep our articles simpler and easier to handle for readers with poor or limited English. You must have seen that all your tables are entirely red-linked. The information is not needed, so it is not in the article. If, in future, the information becomes needed, that's another matter. Meanwhile, I'm going to revert those changes made yesterday. Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Dates

1. I have had to change 27 pages on which you put incorrect dates. Please don't do things unless you really understand what you are doing. My time is valuable! Perhaps you did not use an up-to-date reference source, and so you ended up with different dates from English wiki. Correct source is International Chronostratigraphic Chart. [1].
2. In any event, as an unregistered user, you are not supposed to change content without giving a reliable source.
3. You should consider registering as an editor on this wiki.
4. You should consider putting a little bit about your background onto your user page. Not personal details, though. I notice you have not written a single word in English. You could make suggestions on talk pages of articles instead of just changing them. You could reply to messages like this.

Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello I wanted to make sure that all dates use 1 set of it. Right now we have a page that says Permian starts at 289 mya. Another page that says it starts 300.9 mya and a 3rd page says it starts at 298 mya. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 13:26 14 April 2013 (UTC) 9:26am 04/14/2013 EDT.

There were differences because the pages had been written at different times, and the reference sources used were different. Now they should agree with the International Chronostratigraphic Chart for 2013. They are pretty much correct now, except that some non-geology pages may have out-of-date figures. Pages shouldn't be more than a million years out... Our job is to try and be easier to read while still being sufficiently accurate. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I still see that Historical geology and Template:Geologic History had not yet been updated. I will update it right now. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 16:42 14 April 2013 (UTC) 12:42pm 04/14/2013 EDT.

I have already updated the 2 pages with the correct dates from ICS. If your dates are wrong come to those pages for the correct ones 24.218.110.195 (talk) 17:04 14 April 2013 (UTC) 1:04pm 04/14/2013 EDT.

Again

Once again I make this point: Simple English is not English wiki. Here, geological dates should be rounded where this is reasonable. Obssession with super-accuracy is not necessary: our readers will not benefit. I think you might move on from this topic now. Macdonald-ross (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

unreferenced geologic period articles

I noticed that you changed several articles by tagging them as unsourced and adding references headings. If there are not references, a references section is not needed. Please do not add references headings if there are no references. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You should put them back. Once someone adds a ref ,they may forget to add the ref section back. If they forget ,then this line appears at the bottom of the page. It reads "Cite error:There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references/> tag.". 24.218.110.195 (talk) 23:14 19 May 2013 (UTC) 7:14pm 05/19/2013 EDT.

The section is not needed until a reference exists. Otherwise, its just an empty section. Articles with empty sections look gawdy. Synergy 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If an editor adds a reference, it is that editor's responsibility to put in the reference section. If he or she forgets, it's not the end of the world, it's an easy fix. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Because of this, it seems to me that simple english.wiki appears to be less reliable then most most Wikipedias. If everyone and all bots in simple english.wiki recorded the total amount of articles thats unscourced, It would be alot. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 23:46 19 May 2013 (UTC) 7:46pm 05/19/2013 EDT.

I see your point. Compared to enwiki, very few articles here are referenced. When I was new here, I was discouraged from placing "unreferenced" tags. However, it's the lack of references themselves, not the lack of the reference heading, that is the issue. By the way, I was replying to you, not to Synergy, so I have put the indenting here back the way I had it. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is quite right for us to have fewer references. References are only necessary when a statement might be questioned, or might be surprising to the reader. Since our pages are simpler than English wiki, they need fewer references. A look at established encyclopedias, such as Encyc. Brittanica, shows they have far fewer references than English wiki.
We do not need flags on our articles unless there is some problem which needs solving. A page can be quite all right if its content is simple, clear and obviously correct. Putting flags on pages disturbs the reading experience for our users, and does nothing to improve the page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

new templates

You have been bringing a lot of templates from English Wikipedia. Please note the following about doing that:

• You must give proper attribution. This is a legal requirement. Please add attribution to the templates you have already brought over, and be sure to add it to any others you bring over.
• You need to simplify the language, including the language in the doc pages.
• Templates should be brought here only if they're going to be used. Do you plan to use all the templates you've brought over? The ones I've spot checked aren't used by any articles.

Please slow down on bringing over templates until you put to use the ones you've already brought. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

All these templates are to make these 5 templates work. They are Template:Geological eon, Template:Geological era, Template:Geological period, Template:Graphical timeline, and Template:Horizontal timeline These templates are grouped into "Category:Wikipedia template management" at en.wiki but in a sub-category of that category. This means that every single template there should also be here. These templates tell the bad things about meta wiki's "<timeline>" that gives only 1 or 2 choices . These templates provide lots of stuff. I have done all the bringing over and simply words. I shouldn't be doing all the work. You should simplify sentences and stuff related to them. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 21:50 23 May 2013 (UTC) 5:50pm 05/23/2013 EDT.

Nothing is using those 4 templates, either, except other templates. Do you plan to use those 4 in an article somewhere?

When you say you shouldn't be doing all the work, I disagree. If you choose to bring these templates here, then you are responsible for making them simple. If you want someone else to do that, you should get someone to agree to do it before you bring the templates over. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Graphical timeline is already being used for Template:Eons graphical timeline. Template:Eons graphical timeline is made for Template:Geological eon. Oh by the way simple english.wiki is closing up into the 100,000 article milestone. Create a bunch of articles and pass the milestone. Be prepared! 24.218.110.195 (talk) 03:22 25 May 2013 (UTC) 11:22pm 05/24/2013 EDT.

But somewhere along the line, the templates need to be used by something other than templates, or they're not doing any good. Where will these be used other than in templates? I'm trying to understand why they should be kept, but so far I don't see it. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

4 articles are using these templates. They are using Template:Eons graphical timeline is using Template:Graphical timeline. Template:Eons graphical timeline was made for Template:Geological eon.

These articles are using those templates.

• Phanerozoic
• Proterozoic
• Archaean
• Hadean

Oh please create more articles to pass the 100,000 article milestone. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 00:05 26 May 2013 (UTC) 8:05pm 05/25/2013 EDT.

Thank you, that's what I was looking for! As long as they're all used by something other than templates somewhere. By the way, speaking for myself, I don't think we should be pushing to get to the magic number of articles. We'll get there when we get there. We've seen in the recent past that we sometimes get inferior articles when people try to rush. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Articles are placed in the most specific categories justified by the article content. Thus if an article says some fossil is Jurassic, then it goes into the Jurassic category, not into the more general category of Mesozoic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing templates

Your edits to {{Next period}} is breaking the template's transclusions on more than 30 pages. Test what you want to do in a sandbox first, and then publish the change when you find that it works properly. Spelling compatibility or whatever it is that you're trying to do is meaningless if the template is broken. Osiris (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

New template category that seems to be a duplicate

Would you mind explaining the difference between Category:Period Templates (Geology), which you recently created, and Category:Geological period templates? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The plain category Category:Geological period templates had 25 pages. I created the subcategory because categories should not have more then 20 pages on this Wikipedia. With that category "Category:Geological period templates" had decreased to 17 pages. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 22:43 06 June 2013 (UTC) 6:43pm 06/06/2013 EDT.

It is OK for categories to have more than 20 entries. At 20 entries we can look at creating subcategories, but we don't have to. To create a subcategory, there needs to be a reason to group some of the categories together. If that is the only reason you created the category, please move all the entries back to the original category. Thanks.--Auntof6 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Every category keeps growing and new subcategories are born. If I copied all geologic templates (templates that would fit into "Category:Geological period templates") from en wiki. It would be around 40-50 pages. Category:Period Templates (Geology) is for Period templates e.g Template:Next period, Template:Period color, and it's sandboxes (not all Period templates have sandboxes). They total up to 11 pages. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 23:26 06 June 2013 (UTC) 7:26pm 06/06/2013 EDT.

There has to something that connects the entries in a subcategory. We don't create them just to reduce the number of entries in a category. I'm not sure I understand the connection between the templates in Category:Period Templates (Geology). The two category names don't seem very different. Could you find a more descriptive name for the subcategory? If it comes down to it, it's not that big a problem to have so many templates in a category if there's no reasonable and logical way to group them. Also, please note:

• Only the first word in a category name should be capitalized, unless there is a proper noun in the name.
• Are you planning to copy all of enwiki's templates to here? If so, why? Please don't copy them here without using them.
• Please don't create the sandbox pages unless you're going to use them for specific tests. We don't need them "just in case".

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I will not copy all those templates from en wiki. Those sandboxes are there so we would not mess up the usage. It is not just me doing the test in the sandboxes. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 23:50 06 June 2013 (UTC) 7:50pm 06/06/2013 EDT.

The name is named after the templates. Either the word "Geological" and "period" are in the templates. So the category is named after that. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 00:05 17 June 2013 (UTC) 8:05pm 06/16/2013 EDT.

Ediacaran

Your constant changes to Ediacaran are not justified, and should stop. You should not make changes to a page on the basis of "I would have done it differently". Changes must be an improvement. If a page is in good shape, leave it alone, please. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Macdonald-ross here. While the English Wikipedia also has navigation templates at the top of the article, our navigation templates are at least 1.5 times as wide, and get in the way of the text, disrupting its flow. If you want the navigation templates to stay, take a look at how the English Wikipedia does it (by looking at the source code of their templates). Otherwise, please revert your changes. If you do not revert them in a timely manner, I shall take the liberty of reverting your changes, which, by the way, includes the ones you made to {{period color}} (see WP:ST#Official colors for Historical geology/Geological period articles/templates). Chenzw  Talk  13:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Thank you for your changes. I hope you like changing pages here. Here are some pages that can help you make better changes:

• Help:Contents
• Rules
• How to write Simple English pages
• How to copy from another Wikipedia

You do not need to log in to read or change articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. However, making an account is quick, easy and free. It also gives you many benefits such as:

• A username of your choice
• Your own user page and/or subpage(s)/sandbox(es)
• Other users can send you e-mails without knowing your address
• The ability to move (rename) pages
• The ability to vote in discussions
• Keep a watchlist to see changes made to pages you are interested in.

You can click here to make an account.

I hope you enjoy your time here. Please sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~). This will make your IP address and the date show up on the page. If you decide to log in, your username and the date will show up instead. Again, welcome, and I hope you decide to stay! Reception123 / Receptie123 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Attribution

I noticed that you seem to have brought another template from En Template:Cainozoic_graphical_timeline. You must give proper attribution when copying over templates. This is not the first time you have been told to give proper attribution. User:Auntof6 told you above under User_talk:24.218.110.195#new_templates. Gotanda (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Ma

An editor has requested deletion of Template:Ma, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Template:Ma and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Aaqib Hola! 00:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Nav boxes

You appear to be edit-warring with at least three other editors over the placement of navigational aids on geologic period articles. I've raised the subject of contention at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Geological navigational boxes for discussion. In the future, if someone has an objection to your edit, please address it with the editor (either directly or on the article's talk page) before continuing to push your edit over their objections. Regards, Osiris (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Complex articles

Instead of continuing to clash over the templates and nav boxes, please work on simplifying the articles you have created. The language is too complex. Gotanda (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Precambrian Timeline on Historical geology

I have undone your most recent changes at Historical geology. Please see Simple Talk and abide by the discussions there. You marked your change as a "Proposed Precambrian Timeline" but there was no discussion or consensus. If you want to make a proposal, please do it in userspace and then request comment. Gotanda (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Where's My Water?

Hi there. You need to simplify this further. I was tempted to cut out the complex parts when I first saw it, but seeing as you've been editing here for a while I thought I'd give you the chance to save it. Including a {{complex}} tag at the top of it when you create it doesn't make it acceptable. You also need to give attribution, please (same as you've been advised before, here and here). If you have any questions, please let me know. Regards, Osiris (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban". Thank you. --Osiris (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent addition of navigation templates

Several editors have already expressed their objection to your addition of navigation templates. Please do not edit-war by continuing to add these templates back to the article. You are strongly urged to discuss your changes with other editors before proceeding. Do note that repeated attempts to edit-war will result in a temporary removal of editing privileges. Thank you. Chenzw  Talk  11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Geologic history

Your recent changes, like those you made to "Template:Geologic history", are vandalism, and this shows that you want to harm Wikipedia. This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from changing Wikipedia.
You reverted yet again the setting which has been accepted as consensus by established editors. You must not do this again. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A warning

I'm sure you care about proper indentation and all, which is fine, but when you do things like refactor the hat I put on the irrelevant part of the discussion (I emphasize that because reference in the third person makes it look like somebody else hatted it), and later add an outdent to a different, unrelated part of the conversation started by Osiris, it starts to annoy users like myself. There's nothing wrong with you commenting at the administrators' noticeboard, but remember to only add your own comments or replies and not change those of others. Thank you. TCN7JM 15:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. You might not have done it on purpose, but your recent change removed helpful information from Wikipedia. We ask that you do not remove things from pages, as you did to "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard", without giving a good reason in the change summary. If it was a mistake, do not worry. The part of the article you removed has been put back. If you want to try things out, please use the sandbox. If you would like to learn how to help Wikipedia, please see the welcome page. Thank you. Please do not remove content from the Administrator's noticeboard. That is for adminstrators to do. If you continue disruptive and inappropriate editing, you will be blocked from editing here. Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the change, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding personal comments into articles, you will be blocked from changing Wikipedia. Aaqib 21:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the change, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the only warning you will get for the bad changes you made. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from changing Wikipedia. It's not vandalism. Edit war Aaqib 14:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the change, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Abbreviations

Hello. Please avoid using "1st", "2nd", "3rd", etc wherever you can. This is the Simple English Wikipedia, so abbreviations like that should be spelled out in full. Osiris (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You're still doing it. You just did it on [2] Is there any special reason why? Osiris (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you fixed it. Osiris (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

As a result of a community discussion you have been topic banned from all geological pages broadly construed. You can request a review of your topic ban in 6 months where we will re-evaluate your new edits to see if the problem has been rectified. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

24, in case it wasn't clear: you have been banned from editing articles related to geology. You've just edited four articles on geologic periods, which constitutes a breach. Focus on something else. If you make any more edits to any geology-related article, it's likely you'll find yourself with yet another block. Osiris (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from changing Wikipedia for 24 hours for violating editing sanctions imposed by the community.

Once the block has ended you can make helpful changes. Please read Wikipedia's blocking policy and remember that adding spam, making changes that do not have a neutral point of view, making personal attacks on others, not respecting other people's privacy, and vandalizing pages are not allowed. If you do any of these things, you will be blocked again.

If you think this block is unfair, you can ask to be unblocked by adding {{Unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked. Osiris (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

What category does it start from? Category:Geological periods, Category:Geology, Category:Earth Sciences? You didn't tell that in your comment above. I don't edit any articles in Category:Eons and Category:Eras where all the problem was anymore. I did read what a topic ban does in en.wiki since simple-en.wiki doesn't tell that. Also the template category tree is a separate branch that starts at Wikipedia:Templates so that doesn't count.

Category:Contents ↓ Category:Wikipedia ↓ Category:Wikipedia templates ↓ Category:Technology and applied science templates ↓ Category:Science templates ↓ Category:Geology templates ↓ Category:Geological period templates

and

Category:Contents ↓ Category:Timelines ↓

24.218.110.195 (talk) 00:41 26 July 2013 (UTC) 8:41pm 07/25/2013 EDT.

The scope has nothing to do with what category the page is in. If it's about geology or related to geology, it comes under your topic ban. Osiris (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What I am talking about is this template category tree. Because of this, Category:Geology templates is categorized at Category:Science templates and Category:Timeline templates (Geology) belongs to Category:Timelines. And again you are not saying what category the topic ban starts from. Every time you change this page, the time on the very top of this page will update to my local time you posted it. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 00:53 26 July 2013 (UTC) 8:53pm 07/25/2013 EDT.

You're going to have to explain what you mean more clearly. The topic ban has nothing to do with categories. A topic is a topic, a subject, an area of interest. It is not clearly defined by categories. The topic of geology is what you are banned from. Anything to do with geology, any page related to geology (templates, categories or otherwise). If that isn't clear then you need to better explain what you're asking me. Also: why are you removing template categories from their related subject categories? Please don't do that. They're part of the subject. Osiris (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at en.wiki's template category tree. For example at en.wiki's Category:Color templates, they do not categorize it to Category:Color, they categorize it at Category:Arts and culture templates. This thing also applies to es.wik, hu.wiki, nl.wiki, de.wiki and a few more. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 15:57 30 July 2013 (UTC) 11:57am 07/30/2013 EDT.

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So what? We are not obliged to follow every other wiki out there. In addition, while the wikis which you mention categorise it under arts and culture, zh.wiki categorises it under color, and so does ja.wiki (which categorises it under both categories). Chenzw  Talk  16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As mention by Chenzw, we are not en.wiki. We do many things completely differently than en.wiki. One of the biggest things we do differently is categories. One of our goals is to have a much smaller category tree with a lot less categories. -DJSasso (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation Siri (software)

I undid your recent addition to Siri (software) as a copyright violation. It is simple to find dated versions of that text such as here. That FB post appears to be a copy from an earlier version of the EnWP article. You have already used up so much editor time that I am not going to research all of the versions of En to find it there. There is a correct way to adapt content from EnWP, but this is not it. Gotanda (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Text copied from iPhone 4S. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 00:20 26 July 2013 (UTC) 8:20pm 07/25/2013 EDT.

We don't duplicate text across different articles. And, you are aware that attribution is always required on Wikipedia. You did not identify the source. Gotanda (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Template categories

I just undid the changes you made where you removed categories from template categories. For example, you had removed Category:Color from Category:Color templates. I can see how you could think that should be done, but we do want those categories there. It helps people who are working with articles in specific subject areas, because they can find templates that might be useful to what they are doing. Please don't remove categories like that any more. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Blanking another user's page

At least twice, you have blanked User:Aaqib, the user page of a banned user. There is no reason to blank such pages. Please do not do that again. If you continue, it could be considered vandalism and could lead to you being blocked from editing. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I blank a userpage if they both have banned notice and categorized at Category:Banned wikipedia users. Check out the users (user pages) listed at Category:Banned Wikipedia users. Each of the user's user page is blank and only has a banned notice and the category. There shouldn't be expections on this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.110.195 (talk) 01:07 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If an administrator chooses to blank a user's page when that user is banned, that is up to the administrator. Other than that, only the user who owns a page should blank it. If you reply again, please reply here on your user page so that this conversation stays in one place. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When Aaqib thought he will get banned he blanked his userpage and left only the banned notice. That is until another user reverts because he hasn't been banned for real yet. Check this change here Aaqib blanking his page leaving the banned notice You might think it is the edit made by me but look carefully about who and when made the edit . So I'm pretty sure he wants it blank with only the banned notice and category. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 22:06 16 September 2013 (UTC) 6:06pm 09/16/2013 EDT.

It may not have been you, but a user using this IP address blanked the page. We can't tell how many different people use an IP address. Aaqib's blanking of the page may have been reverted, but he was still around for a little while after that and he didn't re-blank it. In any case, it doesn't matter what another user thinks he wants. If Aaqib wants his page blanked, he can contact an admin offline and ask for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am also the only user of this IP address. Plus User:Djsasso was the reverter of Aaqib's blanking. Aaqib is banned from the community, so the admins do not want to hear/listen to any edit requests or peeps/whatever via email or his talk page. If you see a change summary in the revision history of User:Aaqib that says "I know I will get banned", that was Aaqib's blanking of the page. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 00:57 17 September 2013 (UTC) 8:57pm 09/16/2013 EDT.

August 2013

You have been blocked from changing Wikipedia for 1 week for violating editing sanctions imposed by the community.

Once the block has ended you can make helpful changes. Please read Wikipedia's blocking policy and remember that adding spam, making changes that do not have a neutral point of view, making personal attacks on others, not respecting other people's privacy, and vandalizing pages are not allowed. If you do any of these things, you will be blocked again.

If you think this block is unfair, you can ask to be unblocked by adding {{Unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked. Osiris (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)