Jump to content

User talk:DeccanFlood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hi DeccanFlood! I noticed your contributions to Rajaram I and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for welcoming here. I hope to be a contributive, enriching and dignified editor. DeccanFlood (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaram I[edit]

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} as part of your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raghoji I of Nagpur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bilaspur. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Raghoji I of Nagpur[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello DeccanFlood! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Raghoji I of Nagpur, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://ve65.blogspot.com/2015/02/14th-february-1755-raguji-bhosale-of.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Raghoji I of Nagpur saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content article has been contributed to by me from the scratch by sourcing to official Indian Government-issued gazetters. This is a spam-compilation blog, and does NOT hold any legal copyright authority.
http://ve65.blogspot.com/2015/02/14th-february-1755-raguji-bhosale-of.html
This blog is itself copying from those same gazetteers published for the public, and you can verify them by a simple search.
This blog author "https://www.blogger.com/profile/16569700971043615645" is a spam-bot compiler. It has even composed pornographic content. Please have the admins recheck the sources instead of tracing back by lifted lines. The original sources are Public-issue Gazetteers and not this blog.
This is the original, Public Use Government-Issue gazetteer directly referred by me for contributing to the article-
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xMd55WVB2j0J:https://cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/BHANDARA/his_maratha%2520period.html&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in
The blog you have improperly attributed the original content to has no copyright over this public use free matter, nor is it an original composer or a legitimate author. Please respond at the earliest and restore the wiki page to the original state.
DeccanFlood (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyobons mots 18:31, 4 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have studied this extensively and I followed every single guideline here:[1]. It is clearly written and I quote: "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic; but beware – speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing." @AdityaNakul and @Hassan_Gangu are already banned sockpuppets and they do not come under purview of "protection from personal attacks". For this last point I showed evidence multiple times. Your block isn't justified and I even stopped editing (reversing vandalism) pages for Talk page consensus-driven revision. I have only noted the identity of the voting lobby (entirely Muslim group of lobbyists, but voting on a Hindu State) on the Maratha Empire Talk page, and never passed any judgement ON the identity (Islam) itself whatsoever. There is no personal attack even when deriding "motives" of the lobbyists since 2 of the editors have been already been suspended indefinitely for abusing Wikipedia guidelines. I cannot read anywhere that "extensive personal attacks" guidelines point carries over to already suspended profiles. It is not meant to be a display battleground behaviour but to get the attention of senior editors who banned those profiles which were earlier used for a sham consensus voting to mainstream misinformation. They forgot to review the votes. As a senior editor, please note this attempt to browbeat me: [2] by Padfoot2008. Is a new 2023 editor justified in pushing warnings on another editor who has been on Wikipedia for the same duration? It is an attempt to use a warning message which is meant to be automated or by very senior editors to intimidate new editors. It is on basis of this action (where a 2023 editor is attempting to pass off an automated notice as his own authorized warning) that I have relayed an "assumption of malice". I am wholly open to becoming mellow entirely if senior editors are just going to check the proceedings here: [3] DeccanFlood (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL that were repeated both in the unblock request and subsequent comments below. Take the three days to read and understand the linked policies (as well as comments by Ponyo below) because the next time make a reference to an editor's presumed religion and/or imply that their editing is motivated by that religion, you are liable to be blocked indefinitely. Abecedare (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2024 (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.

But the entire motive behind this lobbying was on religious grounds and religious nature of Mughal Empire against the Maratha Empire. It is their affinity to Mughals that is in question here. I obviously cannot call them Mughals or their adherents (since they most certainly are not Mughals) but this affinity is guided by co-religionist factor. Pointing out a factor that is clear Conflict of Interest is not considered personal attack - [4]. This is not outing either, since the contribution log is entirely public.

I had to explain it to Non-Indian Admins repeatedly so that they understand the factors at work. This is why I mentioned the religion again and again. I have read discussions here where there are Admins who have discussed Hindu nationalism as a factor in editing motives of Indians as well. There are no such qualms seen there then! Because this is regarding socio-political narratives and not just pure historical narratives. If it helped, I could've shown that, unfortunately there is more interest in curbing disruptions in the "community spirit" than stopping misinformation.

My only purpose in mentioning religion in the first place if for Non-Indian admins to understand what dimensions these narratives emerge from. This "Good Faith" spirit of Wikipedia should be with the senior admins in guiding newer admins. In all spirit of pragmatism, why is it not viable to discuss the reality that there are editors here who do not bother with any such ideals and spread their misinformation to the point they are opposed and eventually suspended. Even after suspension people don't track their Edit logs and reverse each and every falsehood. I just wanted to get attention of other senior admins and nip the propaganda in its bud. Instead there is nitpicking over certain terms. Now for 3 days there wouldn't be any participation in the discussions over the original sham consensus carried out to ruin Maratha Empire's history. I have already said I would never engage in such behaviour except for authorities to check, and I have never done so during my contributions here, as evident for all to check. DeccanFlood (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]



But I have challenged all of this ( [5]). It was an Empire and not a Confederacy, the attempt to change this is Historical Negationism and thereby misinformation (it will be debated formally with due civility).

I shouldn't have done that before establishing the Talk page topic, but I understood the futility and stopped reverting Padfoot2008's edits from that point. Padfoot2008's edits do go beyond this single topic, and are evident as a singular theme of Islamic state exaltation, which imply Conflict of Interest if not bias. I assumed directed malice from that but more on the basis of this [6]. You may kindly educate me whether any editor can send such warnings that are supposed to be automated/by senior tiers, to another editor, without any seniority or authority.

Padfoot2008's edits do not qualify as vandalism only if his edits are backed by that consensus voting on the Maratha Empire talk page. But that voting which involved 5 to 6 admins has been proven to be a sham by sockpuppets and has no validity (it is not a majority vote, hence not a consensus). In short they are vandalism, they qualify as vandalism because as per these guidelines: [7], he has been engaged in Subtle Vandalism and also possibly (I am having trouble comprehending this point fully) this trick of Gaming the system by letting his edits go unnoticed (since no Admin has, till now, noticed that 2 of the 5 or 6 voters of that consensus debate were sockpuppets as they were banned later). In short that debate did not have a majority vote, and it was a manipulated affair.

By blocking me for 72 hours, you have handicapped my attempts to garner attention and support of senior administrators over the malpractice. I expected to be supervised and instructed by them whether I am in the right or wrong, and not get blocked suddenly without any communication by you out of nowhere. I do not engage in passionate opposition or digging out edits, except to draw attention of senior administrators. It is a temporary mode of conduct, and it never reflects in my contributions to Wikipedia. If the Senior administrators wouldn't consider my stance to hold any water, I wouldn't engage in such behaviour as displayed. I request to be unblocked because I only work under guidance of senior administrators, and while I extensively studied the guidelines/rulers, if I was instructed on the conduct even once before the block I would have altered the tone of communication. Please allow me to respond to the editors. I have recently been replied to there. DeccanFlood (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You were told by Noorullah here that your post contained personal attacks and your reply was "There is no "attack post". You are hyper-focused on whether editors are muslim vs. non-muslim and whether they are a "senior editor", discounting any posts or warnings if you don't consider them "senior" enough. All of this must stop if you want to continue editing here. Another admin will review your appeal, I won't be posting here again.-- Ponyobons mots 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This Noorullah User is also a 2021 editor. Senior means your tier of editors. My entire point was that you have overwhelmingly intricate builders of South Asian narratives at work here in such contentious articles, and your tier is completely detached and unaware of their proceedings. Your powers of supervision end up ineffective as you overlook the misinformation being mainstreamed here.
    And I was being honest that you can check again and see that there was no 'personal attack' in that post whatsoever against Noorullah [8], but against the already banned sockpuppets Hassan_Gangu and AdityaNakul which were brought along with Noorullah by Padfoot2008 on basis of co-religion. You simply ignoring that this is a Muslim Mughal Empire enthusiast lobby against the Hindu Maratha Empire. I am not passing any judgement on them being malevolent (I considered Padfoot2008's actions specifically malicious towards me, apart from the lobbying) but simply incorrect, and incorrectly legitimized. You are simply not able to understand the intricacies of their narrative offense by turning Chhatrapati of Maratha "Empire" into Chhatrapati of Marathas (tribal chief status), turning them into insurgents with no legitimacy.
    There literally is no majority here. It shouldn't take even 30 minutes to revise and fix the error for an experienced adminstrator. Yet I am being handicapped for drawing the attention of senior administrators, so that I do not need to be vocal about the matter in the first place. Blocking me without a warning (by you or your tier of admins, a warning by Noorullah holds no weight) was unjust, I intricately studied the Wikipedia guidelines and tried my best to choose words carefully.
    DeccanFlood (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


To the User Robertsky, owing to this 72 hour ban, I am unable to reply to you directly. I attempted to maintain civility (at least it was my sincere intention). However my point, which might have implied signs of excitation, and appeared as personal attack (for pointing out the relatively new and agenda-driven Editor profiles) actually stands even now.

Before I explain how, let me tell you that I did notice that you shifted the page on request of a User:Extorc since he "closed" the discussion. But did you realize that this profile is also a 2021 creation and the main bulk of the discussions were carried forward by these profiles made in 2022-2023 (who have strong tendencies to have shared interests based on their contribution log) and such radical changes should not have been passed without the most senior editors participating extensively in the debate?

We must not assume bad faith even of lobbies, but my point in pointing out your foreign (Non-Indian) identity, with due respect, was that you cannot understand the implications of such changes in Indian narratives. The Hindu Maratha Empire had intact hierarchy where even the most elevated officers could never affect the position of the Satara Chhatrapati. It is an Islamic supremacist narrative that Mughal Emperor of Delhi was instead their overlord.

You have inadvertently supported and made a very volatile flimsy propaganda point mainstream. DeccanFlood (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it was a technical request, many admins or pagemovers would make the move as it was presented back before the discovery of socks regardless of their personal positions on the matter. Now there is a process to settle the matter in an amicable fashion, discuss with the closer first. If that fails, there is WP:MRV next to request other editors for a review of the discussion and consensus. I have extended a line of enquiry to the closer on the article's talk page, and that's all I will do for now, and will not be responding here if it is regarding this matter. I suggest that you use the 72 hours to disengage and rethink how you engage the community, hopefully without "signs of excitation", before coming back. – robertsky (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are experienced and assume well of people, but these people do not consider themselves part of a community. I interact with senior editors, take their advice, study the guidelines, and try to contribute genuinely. While I cannot claim seniority to these other editors (Padfoot, Noorullah, etc.), they exist for an interest in shaping narrative. I also cannot claim that I exist for not shaping narrative, but I take simple route of study and writing occasionally. On the other hand if this lobbying trick worked then a simple consensus debate can be used for series of vandalism in pages. Now that you have found out that 2 of the voters were sockpuppets, lets assume you will revert the page name. But will you or any of your senior-tier admins track and revert Padfoot2008's series of Maratha Empire label distortions based on that same consensus (example - [9])? An entire Empire has been turned into a "Kingdom", and/or a tribal confederacy of sorts and the adherents reduced to upstart insurgents.
My point was not that they hold viewpoints, but that they lobbied, and that there is an evidence of malpractice. Those sockpuppets were of a user who was banned for abusing his profile and spreading misinformation relentlessly. And I merely pointed out that this was a Muslim operator who used a Hindu alias in his second profile for inflating the voting lobby. I have no qualms about their faith, but the basis of their bias. It is not the use of sockpuppet that matters, but the reason he made a sockpuppet: because he was spreading biased misinformation (due to which he was banned). These people are not the community Wikipedia is trying to build. DeccanFlood (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admins or editors even, be it what 'tier' or 'seniority' you think one may have here (news flash: there's none here), seldom unilaterally override consensus. A discussion should. to. be. held with the closer first, and one should assume good faith in the process. Let them reply first in a timely fashion. And then we take it from there. – robertsky (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only want the attention/participation of senior admins in such contentious matters. Question of Unilateral override will arise only if there are too few of them interested. There should be plenty who engage and investigate and make it a thoroughly checked out platform of information presentation. That was all I ever wanted out of this.
I believe "seniority" is natural when an admin grows in popularity and experiences and undertakes increasing number of topics under them. There is naturally a constraint of time to be spared and burden of responsibility. Anyways thank you for taking the time to interact with me.DeccanFlood (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky please note that another voter for that consensus @DeepstoneV was also a convicted sockpuppet of the same person handling @Hassan_Gangu and @AdityaNakul. I did not list it along with the other 2 sockpuppets. Please revise the discussion.
The consensus does not stand as recently claimed made by @Extorc. Only Noorullah, ImperialAficionado, and Padfoot2008 which are 3 Mughal history enthusiasts have pushed for this, unless I missed other voters. Out of the 6 visible voters, Not two but Three sockpuppets operated by a single person voted in this manipulated consensus, inflating numbers to nearly 50%! DeccanFlood (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeccanFlood Let me make some things clear for you.
  1. As a closer, my job is not limited to counting !votes. WP:RMCIDC states Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly. Considering all the three struck down !votes by the socks were very small statements which I didn't assign much weight to. Your quantitative analysis doesn't amount to much as far as I am concerned.
  2. You have never, during the course of these discussions, argued over policy and you continue to turn a blind eye over it. In your last reply The consensus does not stand as recently claimed made by @Extorc. Only Noorullah, ImperialAficionado, and Padfoot2008 which are 3 Mughal history enthusiasts... This comment again amounts to WP:ADHOM as you are using [their editing history] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views
>>> Extorc.talk 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is my judgement that you are not qualified for this role of a "closer", and have engaged in mainstreaming misinformation with support of an illicitly inflated lobby. We can keep the Quantitative argument aside, you have deliberately ignored sources that go against the established narrative of Maratha Empire.
You are digressing and claiming I am "using their editing history as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views", when such a claim is a strawman on your part.
I have the right to freely point out Conflict of Interest as per the guidelines [10]. You quite conveniently managed to ignore the note: Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic; but beware – speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing. Let me assert again, I have assigned no negative value (Bad Faith) to quality of their edits, only motives. And the purpose of it was making senior Non-Indian Admins aware of the malpractice and sham discussions being carried out within this circle.
The Maratha State was an Empire. It is clearly called so in an easily accessible English narrative: A History of the Mahrattas: To which is Prefixed an Historical Sketch of the Decan, Containing a Short Account of the Rise and Fall of the Mooslim Sovereignties Prior to the Aera of Mahratta Independence by Edward Scott Waring written in 1810 which makes it contemporary. I can bring out dozens of contemporary Marathi and European detailed sources on this. The Maratha Emperor boasted of titles of Imperial dignity in both Sanskrit and Persian. Having sectors under teams of closely interlinked nobles does not disqualify a State from being an Empire. Not even if they are competitive. Neither you, nor did anyone of that lobby refer to various other states in world history which had such sectors but still qualify as Empire. None of you referred to the government body or taxes, only flimsy references to "respect of the Chhatrapati" and excessive attention to directly administered territory. You would be hard-pressed to find Emperors who travelled and directly supervised affairs of the entire length and breath of their Empire. Leaving some exceptional roving Emperors like Charles V and Aurangzeb (only during state of war).
The discussion was "low" quality yet not deep, circular but incoherent. Almost entirety of the arguments made were devoid of any backing from scholars in Political Science (which is a formal subject). Not to mention again, 3 of the 6 voters were literally fraudulent sockpuppets meant to hoodwink other Admins giving the issue a cursory glance. I cannot say anything more except that you have misused your authority, imposing opinions of FOUR people on hundreds of thousands of readers. DeccanFlood (talk) DeccanFlood (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is my judgement that you are not qualified for this role of a "closer". - My eligibility as a closer is not subject to your judgement.
and have engaged in mainstreaming misinformation with support of an illicitly inflated lobby - I don't understand from where you get this. Please, in an elaborate response, demonstrate to me how I am a part of any lobby. Unless you can do that, stop making unsubstantiated claims.
You are digressing and claiming I am "using ... views", when such a claim is a strawman on your part. This is literally an equivalent of "No you". You have repeatedly claimed that we must stop taking their views into account and consensus because they are "Mughal Enthusiasts".
I have the right to freely point out Conflict of Interest as per the guidelines WP:COI clearly states [COI] editing involves contributing yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. >>> Extorc.talk 14:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeccanFlood, you are currently serving a block because you would not stop attacking other editors based on your personal perception of their religious or political motivation, and you have been told again many times in this discussion that these comments are unacceptable, yet you continue with your attacks. You've also pinged me specifically as a "senior editor" despite being told that we do not rank editors by seniority (and for the record, both Ponyo and Abecedare have been administrators longer than I have) but you insist on saying you don't need to heed warnings from administrators you have deemed to be in a lower "tier", which is another personal attack. Your most recent comments on Extorc's competence to close a discussion that you do not agree with are also more personal attacks and battleground behaviour. For these reasons, I am resetting the duration of your block and revoking your talk page access.
Let me say again, as someone that you identified as a "senior editor": your behaviour is unacceptable. When your block expires, if you want to challenge Extorc's close then please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and make your case without referring to the religion or politics or nationality of any person or group, and without referring to any editor's motivation or competence. If you can't challenge the close without attacking someone then you do not have grounds to challenge. If you continue this battleground behaviour when your block expires, you will be topic-banned as arbitration enforcement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Abecedare (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DeccanFlood&oldid=1227402628"