Hello, Kaj Taj Mahal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Lexein (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary at this edit, "no one cares" was pretty rude to whoever you were addressing, and uninformative to other editors. I should know, I'm guilty of doing the same thing too often. Please read WP:Edit summaries and WP:Civility. Summaries are best when they communicate reasoned action. Consider "rm, unsourced", or even, "unsourced & trivial: minor OS". It's best to keep argument and opinion out of noncontroversial deletions. That is, don't provoke. If you've read this far, thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Lexein (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I rolled back your addition at the talk page for List of Scientists Opposing, etc, due to inflammatory language denigrating people. I don't particularly care for those guys' writings myself, but still we have to follow WP:BLP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Your talk page comments, along with your !vote at the AfD, seemed a little like trolling. It would be helpful to keep the sarcasm to a minimum.- MrX 21:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Climate change. 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.

As discussed in the arbitration enforcement request concerning you, your edits to James Delingpole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have violate Wikipedia's rules of conduct. By adding material such as "He maintains that the Anthropogenic climate change is a "scam",^[ref] despite both its wide acceptance in the scientific community, and having no scientific qualifications himself to make this accusation", you have engaged in inappropriate editorializing and violated the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies by expressing in Wikipedia's voice and without references the opinion that this person has "no scientific qualifications", which is derogatory. If you repeat similar conduct, you are likely to be banned from editing articles in this topic area.  Sandstein  08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly suggestion: BLP applies everywhere (not just articles). You'll soon be told this in a much less friendly way. I suggest striking "mental midget" where you've written it. Again, I don't say this to cause you trouble, but to try to help. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But even comments like "inferior" are very likely to bring you trouble. (Not that I'm disagreeing…) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from the entire topic area of climate change, per WP:TBAN, for six months.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this Arbitration Enforcement request

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.  Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kaj Taj Mahal: this is a notice that after a MfD and two RfCs, the Editor Review process has been officially retired. You should not expect further comments on your open Editor Review, which will be archived soon. In the coming weeks there may be information available on alternative processes that you can pursue if you so desire. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is not currently the Prime Minister. Stating that she is, is inaccurate. By all means edit the article once she becomes Prime Minister but doing so beforehand is inaccurate. As I have reverted two of your edits I suggest if you wish to debate this, then take it to the Talk page of the article. Calvin (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: Please ensure accuracy when editing pages. She is the Prime Minister, and was officially for 40 seconds before you edited it. Editing in ignorance leads to inaccurate articles, which we don't want here on Wikipedia. Thedamneditor (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the edit you made which had Jeremy Heywood as Acting PM was innacurate. The UK has no such position, as explained in entertaining narrative format here:http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ah-vignette-come-back.368378/ 125.237.174.161 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Derek Chauvin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Kaj Taj Mahal: Three times now, you have pushed to add "convicted murderer" to the lead on that article, as seen here: 1st, 2nd, 3rd. There is a relevant Talk Page discussion going on about that right now at this location: Talk:Derek Chauvin#First sentence. Instead of reverting again (and violating the 3RR rule), join in the discussion there. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk)