Thank you for the review of Rhycherus filamentosus at DYK. Please note that by convention, the scientific names of animals and plants are always written in italics. Look at Euryoryzomys emmonsae, a featured article, for example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: such a brilliant point! Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 ∯WBG^converse 14:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP. You are editing in one of the most volatile areas of the encyclopedia and I have precisely zero confidence that you have enough competency. Their's weird synthesis; weird language and what not. ∯WBG^converse 14:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for your information, Picking up unsourced material is nothing to do with POV.Regards!Saff V. (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

Hello:

I went through the article Khums recently copy edited by a new member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I fixed a number of issues with the wording, fonts, and Wikilinks etc... One thing I did notice is that the citations are inconsistent and really need some work. In the "India" section I used this incredibly useful tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ProveIt ProveIt and fixed a couple of the citations. When you select the template, Journal, for example it automatically places the article in quotation marks and the journal name in italics etc... You might want to install it an go through the citations and fix them.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

Hi Saff, Many thanks for this new article. It seems, however, that most of the contents of the article is already covered in another article. Your new creation does not seem to be an article split, but rather a WP:POVFORK. You are welcome to work on the main article if you believe the contents presented there is unbalanced. Pls also see WP:SPLIT on creation of article splits. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman:, I am confused! You merged my article just a moment after its creation. As you mentioned, splitting or merging needs to knowing other user opinions. The subject is notable and will be developed, why do you say it covers material from another article without giving time!Saff V. (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new article would have been in scope of criteria for speedy deletion WP:A10 as it "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject". In addition, it changes the point of view of the existing section. Such point of view forks should be resolved by engaging with existing editors in the existing article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: You immediately deleted this notable subject and well sourced material based on A10, while  by adding new material to existing article, it would become long and split would be needed! It's not normal to my eyes that you delete it because of “it changes the point of view of the existing section”. what is the problem with the changing?you don’t engage discussion to let us enjoy other users opinion rather than lay on just your idea.Saff V. (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]