Pprcgi
Refrain from adding stubs
editOnce again, you are asked to please refrain from adding stubs to the CPEC article. You are free to write a well written, unbiased, and and fully developed section, but your stub addition does not warrant its own separate header.
- What stub? All things added are backed by WPRS. Use article talk page to discuss it. Pprcgi (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
A stub is what you are writing. A single sentence. I didnt claim your statement was unsourced. What I said is that it is a stub. And please STOP re-adding the nonsense and horrendously biased section on "Indian terrorism" when those issues are already addressed in the section right above. Willard84 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
And also, if you'll take note, youll see that the article talk page already had a section discussing the stub you persistently add. Take special note of this from Wikipedia's stub page: "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." Hence I merged your section into "other roadway projects" because it has "little verifiable information." That is not to say what you wrote is false, but that it is very little information, and thus does not warrant its own section. Willard84 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Please take care when making revisions
editYour continuous reversions are disruptive as you not only continuously re insert that one sentence regarding the Central Alignment, but also undo a whole host of other useful edits with factual information. You deleted new sentence that were relevant in several different sections because you undid a whole host of sourced and useful edits when you tried to re-instate your sentence. Please be more careful when reverting edits, because you're not just inserting your single sentence, you're deleting other useful information.
And further, when you revert you're re-instating extremely biased and un-sourced information added by some other user. Specifically the section "Indian attempts to sabotage CPEC" was re-instated by you, and whoever wrote that paragraph made bold and unsourced claims that India had set up a $300 million fund to sabotage CPEC without offering any proof or source whatsoever to back up that extraordinary claim. Not to mention that the heading itself is extremely biased and does not conform to wikipedia standards. Repeatedly making such revisions will result in reporting your activities to moderators. Willard84 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive edits
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.163.40.114.55 Willard84 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)(talk) 20:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Repeatedly adding non-neutral content to articles, e.g. "Indian sponsored terrorism to sabotage the project", will not be tolerated; if you continue, longer blocks will result. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
ARBIPA sanctions alert
edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.