Ankank

Welcome!

Hello, Ankank! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Proposed deletion of Theory of Eight

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Theory of Eight, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Confusing article with no real elucidation of its almost certainly non-notable subject.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bongomatic 00:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of TO8

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on TO8, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because TO8 is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting TO8, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew Kennedy BSc FBIS MAPSE

A tag has been placed on Andrew Kennedy BSc FBIS MAPSE requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Minimac (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Essential Personalities, and why humans found love adapted to monogamy and became better parents, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if you think it's important (and given that you seem to be Andrew Kennedy, you shouldn't be writing about your own work, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). You would need to find reliable independent sources that recognize the notability of this book. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Essential Personalities , and why humans found love adapted to monogamy and became better parents

The article Essential Personalities , and why humans found love adapted to monogamy and became better parents has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pseudo-scientific article disccused - not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &dorno rocks. (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Essential Personalities , and why humans found love adapted to monogamy and became better parents

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edits at Shiatsu

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ankank reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: ). Thank you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Shiatsu. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

1. I was unaware of the the three change rule and I am happy to cpmply with the Wikipedia norms in the future. 2. I left messages about the misleading content with the disagreeing editors who did not reply or engage in any discussion. 3. The article in question is seriously misleading. Facts are wrong, sources exist to back this up. The origin of shiatsu is misleading and leave out at least two important figures in its creation and dissemination namely Tamai Tenpaku and Masunaga 4. I proposed that discussion about evidence - a thorny matter at the best of times - be placed in a separate section. This request was ignored by the editors in question. 5. The contrary evidence which is included in the article is controversial at best. The remarks of Ernst's are just opinions of the relevance of the experimental evidence and does not in itself constitute definitive conclusions. Ernst is not an experimentalist. There are other just as weighty opinions that should also be included. The articles quoted are out of date. There are more studies available since 2011. The Cancer Society actually endorses shiatsu as a therapy for sufferers though not as a cure. 6. A student wishing to inform him or herself about the shiatsu would not be informed of the subject. 7. The article is clearly biased and does not represent the aims of WIkipedia Ankank (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Most of your unblock request fails to deal with the reason you were blocked, and is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of appeal, but point 1. does make an attempt to address the block, so I'll respond to it. You claim that you were unaware of the three-revert rule, yet you continued to edit war even after User:Alexbrn left you this warning, which clearly links to the policy which explains that rule. You were therefore made aware of the policy before you made four more reverts on the same page. This suggest that you either did not read the policy (in which case I have little faith in your willingness to "comply with Wikipedia norms in the future", since you won't know what they are if you don't read them) or that you read the policy but decided that because you were "right" it didn't apply to you - in which case, you are not ready to be allowed to edit a collaborative encyclopedia. I am therefore declining your appeal. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)