User talk:Levixius

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.

Doug Weller talk 14:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to be much more specific. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add some elaborations. LΞVIXIUS💬 15:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The article CallMeCarson has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ugbedeg (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It has been addressed in the talk page. LΞVIXIUS💬 23:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Levixius! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:55, Sunday, August 23, 2020 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 2022 Chuukese independence referendum has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Depression, Suicidal tendencies and Jammu and Kashmir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The article Shittymorph has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One source (cnet) with nontrivial coverage is not enough for notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JBL (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shittymorph is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shittymorph until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on IVM Podcasts 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 web content that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for this tag. I clearly jumped the gun on it, and have now removed it. Apologies again! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's fine mate. LΞVIXIUS💬 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you edit out the part where Mexicans are smuggled across US borders to help out Joe Biden? Because your edit was just less than an hour ago. Interestingly enough, it was brought up during the US presidential debate.

So yeah, makes one wonder why you're actively shilling for Democrats. AlucardAFT3003 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That paragraph was (imo) unnecessary uncited jargon that was contributing nothing wasn't already elaborated on, so I had it purged while proofreading. If you believe I was wrong, feel free to bring it up or re-add those. I didn't do it to help Biden, although I did find that article because of the debate. LΞVIXIUS💬 04:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hinduism in Sri Lanka

added links pointing to Pantheon, Portuguese and Colonial period

Coyote (person)

added a link pointing to Mexican

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't give out my personal emails but thank you for reaching out. Yes I'm him. Never got anything but hurt and betrayed by being in that film. What does "across the aisle" mean. You mean across the sea? I have a lot of admiration for my Indian brothers fighting against bigotry and discrimination. desmay (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

So sorry to hear that. 'Across the aisle' actually meant across the political aisle lol, since I'm pretty left. Also, the admiration is symmetrical. LΞVIXIUS💬 11:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Isnt. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Isnt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Levixius, I was popping through your talk page when I noticed a strange fellow leaning into my page from the left! I was most shocked, and after a few moments to collect myself, I resolved that I should have to contact you to ask you how you did that! How did you do that? Amazing, however you did it. Well, consider this me saying hi! Yours, Joe 18:02, 01 February 2021 (UTC)

lol, hi Joe. Sorry for the late reply there. Nice to meet you.

I found the peeking thing a few months ago on some wikipedia joke page. It's not terribly hard to do, it's just a gif () that's attached to the right side of the screen. LΞVIXIUS💬 15:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Levixius! Since the time I posted and now, I figured out how to do this! Behold, BALL:

There's so much great stuff to steal off other people's wiki pages! I might add Jimbo peeking in to my own page. Thanks for the reply. (Also, dang, you know you've got a nice name?) Hope you're well! Joe (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If you ever see something cool on someone else's user page and you wanna reproduce it, al you have to do it is to hit "Edit" and switch to wiki text mode (rather than Visual Editor). That way, you should see the code you need to add to your page. — Python Drink (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Diljaan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kalinjar Fort, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mughal, Sanad and Harsh Vardhan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Kirkbride is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kirkbride until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

– Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antilia bomb scare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Murder of Ki Suk Han, is not suitable as written to remain published, as it contains no content. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot we could do that, thanks LΞVIXIUS💬 13:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Sympulse, which you proposed for deletion. A7 does not apply. The article contains two credible claims of importance/significance: it is hosted by a notable institution (the university); it has hosted notable celebrity guests. Take it to AfD instead. If there's significant, independent coverage out there, it's hiding well. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! asilvering (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Earl Silverman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Founder.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Levixius. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Murder of Ki Suk Han, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Bachcha Munsi, which you proposed for deletion. The article passes WP:NPOL since India has a federal system of government, and he was a member of a state assembly. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunately I'm not very active on this website since I have things going on in my real (off-internet) life, so I couldn't respond to that discussion. However, it appears that it has failed to provide any fruitful results. My sincere condolences. LΞVIXIUS💬 17:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately, it got overlooked and archived. You should consider it to be a final warning. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You might want to put in some effort in expanding the article and providing more details by using reliable sources. You may want to look at Murder of Samuel Paty for ideas. I won't be surprised if the article gets tagged for deletion soon. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edits to Anti-Brahminism have been highly tendentious and also poorly sourced. Please stop, or you risk being topic banned from Indian subjects. Also, this very recent edit of Flavia Agnes has no support in the given source, which has nothing to say about decriminalizing rape of boys. That is possibly a conclusion you yourself make from the text of the source (a.k.a. original research). I'd self-revert if I were you. Bishonen | tålk 15:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC).

Hi! Regarding the Agnes article, the only time child rape laws in India were made gender neutral was with the introduction of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, which is also the only law that criminalizes it against boys. This isn't as much as original research as it is a direct conclusion that can be drawn from that source, no subjectivity involved. Perhaps I erred in the statement about decriminalizing, should have instead opted for 'opposing criminalizing,' but regardless, it is a good faith edit.

Secondly, I don't see the issue with regarding my edits in Anti-Brahaminism. All three of the sources I've mentioned are quoted as such. Scholarly opinion (De Roover, Novetzke) on the issue is dilligently quoted as such, and the same will be said for the Hindu American Foundation's views. Excluding these prominent sources would instead constitute a WP:NPOV violation.

Regards, LΞVIXIUS💬 16:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

For continued tendentious editing of Anti-Brahminism, especially your insistence on the poorly sourced comparison with antisemitism (which you gave its own section on the strength of one opinion piece), you have been indefinitely page-blocked from the article. Note that you can still edit the talkpage (which you have so far not done, though you tell Joshua Jonathan he needs to go there) as well as the rest of Wikipedia. Please take this as a shot across the bow; a topic ban from Indian subjects, a much stronger sanction, would come next. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC).

So it's now possible to block a user from editing only a single page? That's cool and minimizes the need to block editors all together which just makes us lose editors. — Python Drink (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have made good faith edits, and despite clear disruptive removal by User:Joshua Jonathan, I have sought a discussion on talk page so he can raise his concerns and perhaps we could proceed to a consensus, as I firmly believe the onus is on him to explain his removal of said Content. I have also clearly explained why I have reverted said edits. In every step of the way I have been well in line with Wikipedia's established Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct,

Moreover, I have previously replied to User:Bishonen's concerns regarding my edits, and acted on the issues he had pointed out, namely, [1] fixed the only lack of proper sourcing I could find in said edit, and [2] fixed the improper wording in the other edit.

In English Wikipedia, admins hold tools to further the goals of Wikipedia. These tools do not, in the words of Jimbo himself, make them an authority on said rules. Bishonen could have called for arbitration, or called the disputing user to the talk page. Instead he has based a ban on his own personal opinions. Bishonen has chosen to not only ignore an already written reply to his concerns, but has taken action and threatened me with further bans. This amount of prejudice and failure to communicate is a clear as a violation of WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT for lack of civility and accountability.

It is thus, that I am appealing this block, as well as raising a ticket at WP:XRV. LΞVIXIUS💬 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your personal attack below is utterly unacceptable. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:27, 2 May 2024 (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.

LΞVIXIUS💬 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have sought a discussion on talk page - where? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

On edit summaries, which I'd assume you'd have read before the repeated reverting. LΞVIXIUS💬 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bishonen's message didn't get through? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Buddy if you're gonna taunt me you're gonna have to do better than dickride a wikipedia admin. I have been more than civil to you. LΞVIXIUS💬 19:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that sure wasn't wise. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Levixius. Thank you for your work on Vishnu Tiwari. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oru Kal Oru Kannadi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DCP.

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The article White Feather Campaign you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:White Feather Campaign for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto-public -- Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

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. Bishonen | tålk 16:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Hi, Levixius. When I page-blocked you from Anti-Brahminism for persistent tendentious editing in May 2024, I warned you to take it as a shot across the bow; further tendentious editing could lead to a topic ban from Indian subjects. I'm now concerned about your current editing, and that is the reason I have given you the alert above. Example: in Special:Diff/1316676543 and again in Special:Diff/1316741024/1320385541 at Amit Malviya, you removed various reliably sourced material that might be seen as negative, with the obvious intention of making Malviya look better. Please make sure you edit neutrally per Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV. Bishonen | tålk 16:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC).

  Read closer, I've rephrased the article but haven't removed any material per se. LΞVIXIUS💬 17:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Rajdeep Sardesai. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Zalaraz (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nancy Pelosi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)