Daniel Case (talk | contribs) |
Echo1Charlie (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 273: | Line 273: | ||
{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=2401:4900:264e:baa:2c97:100f:26fa:2bbc | 2=<nowiki>Editing from 2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled) </nowiki> | 3=User:Materialscientist | decline=There was a time when I would have been allowed to lift this block by granting IPBE, and it looks like you would be a good candidate for it. But, we are stricter in our ways now and all I can do is refer you to [[WP:IPEC]] and commend you to follow those instructions. — [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=2401:4900:264e:baa:2c97:100f:26fa:2bbc | 2=<nowiki>Editing from 2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled) </nowiki> | 3=User:Materialscientist | decline=There was a time when I would have been allowed to lift this block by granting IPBE, and it looks like you would be a good candidate for it. But, we are stricter in our ways now and all I can do is refer you to [[WP:IPEC]] and commend you to follow those instructions. — [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)}} |
||
{{u|Daniel Case}} Sorry to bother you I tried the [[WP:IPEC]], it asked for ip affected but when I submitted ip it says "Appeal for "2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32" (although submitted ip was "2401:4900:264e:baa:2c97:100f:26fa:2bbc") |
{{u|Daniel Case}} Sorry to bother you I tried the [[WP:IPEC]], it asked for ip affected but when I submitted ip it says "'''Appeal for "2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32" (although submitted ip was "2401:4900:264e:baa:2c97:100f:26fa:2bbc") |
||
Appeal status INVALID |
Appeal status INVALID |
||
Blocking administrator Materialscientist |
Blocking administrator Materialscientist |
||
Block reason CheckUser block -- please do NOT modify this block without consulting a CheckUser -- revert to original; not needed |
Block reason CheckUser block -- please do NOT modify this block without consulting a CheckUser -- revert to original; not needed |
||
Time submitted 2021-10-12 05:12:21" and "This appeal was marked as invalid." ——What is this means? Can you help me? —[[User:Echo1Charlie|Echo1Charlie]] ([[User talk:Echo1Charlie#top|talk]]) 05:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
Time submitted 2021-10-12 05:12:21" and "This appeal was marked as invalid."''' ——What is this means? Can you help me? —[[User:Echo1Charlie|Echo1Charlie]] ([[User talk:Echo1Charlie#top|talk]]) 05:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
:I have not gone through that process myself, as it happens. But maybe it wants the exact IP as opposed to the range? You mean it's substituting the full blocked range when you put in the specific IP (which of course [[dynamic IP|may change every time you edit]])? Or the other way around? [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 05:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
:I have not gone through that process myself, as it happens. But maybe it wants the exact IP as opposed to the range? You mean it's substituting the full blocked range when you put in the specific IP (which of course [[dynamic IP|may change every time you edit]])? Or the other way around? [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 05:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
:: Thank you for repying {{u|Daniel Case}} The process was this — I submitted my username and then selected "the underlying IP address is blocked" to the question "Is your account directly blocked?" and below that there was a box with "Why should you be unblocked?" question, I conveyed this message there and i got an appeal key "74e2a757129b639509a46be557ea5644"; I was standby on that page after a few minutes I got a message "We can't find the block, share the specific Ip address" then I provided my Ip :2401:4900:264e:baa:2c97:100f:26fa:2bbc there and submitted then the next page loads shows this message (I have highlighted that message above), It happened yesterday too. —[[User:Echo1Charlie|Echo1Charlie]] ([[User talk:Echo1Charlie#top|talk]]) 06:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:01, 12 October 2021
Hello, E1Char, and 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 at the help desk, or place {{Help me}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
May 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to HAL Tejas Mk2, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
BilCat (talk) I've requested on HAL Tejas Mk1 talk page but nobody replied or objected so I thought its okay to move as nobody objected; also the change was minor a small letter k replaced by a capital letter K so I thought it's okay (my bad!); sorry I'll not do that again without consensus (how does that work?) Also can you guide me to the dos and don'ts in Wikipedia editing before I end up doing something violating the guidelines and policies? Thank you--E1Char (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Something is still left 😊😊😊
Sorry, I was disappointed at that time when you was reverted my edits and complaint to the Ranaboy for that. And also I have made some non-sense for your thought about wikipedia. I am not like that . When I get disappointed I do what seems right at that time. Please forgive me if feel bad for that behaviour. And please edit your user page and I have returned your loving thought you . If you want any help from than feel free to contact for that purpose or write on my talk page. Happy editing(I ame Shears (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)).
I don't know what you're talking about, that's why I did not respond E1Char (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
"Only 25"
You are going with the rapid pace.I am behind from you by number and experience. I want to do friendship with you and you are not replying.I think you are not disturb from me . YOU NEED ONLY 25 EDITS TO BECOME EXTENDED AUTOCONFIRMED USER . Good my friend . Happy editing. I ame Shears (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Misquote
It would be a lot better if u refer those reference properly. The arjun has 500 EFC compared to 250 of the T" series anks used by the IA, it would be better to know why u have removed that. And second thing is there has been no plan to equip the arjun with 125MM smoothbore gun no need to add those things. Helios007 (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Helios007: Actually I read that, but it has of no significance as - 1. it doesn't convey anything specific to the reader as -1. they does't know the benchmark of barrel life to compare with, I've encountered these unnecessary information when I was overhauling the Tejas article, TBH it's actually a mess to clear 2. to avoid the sentence getting paraphrased, 3. personal reason for the exclusion - we should not promote one by downgrading another that's not a right thing -Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- And about 125 mm smoothbore, actually it was a fault, I usually edit during night, most of the edit to Arjun (if I remember correctly) are made during night, when someone pointed out that mistake I corrected it, I've no hesitation to accept reasonable correction, (I think I've made it clear in the edit summary) - Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, so, far there has been many half boiled liberals out there who just blindly follows some random guy on YouTube who criticize everything for his living, so,there has been many rumours spreader by those guys " that The rifled barrel used in the Arjun is shitty coz,it's life is far lower than smoothbore gun ,but in reality that's not the truth , the barrel life is 500 rounds compared to 250 rounds of T' series tanks which has an smooth bore Helios007 (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
So, that barrel life data is very important to prove that so called tank experts on social media are wrong. Helios007 (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Helios007: I know what you're talking about, but there's no benchmark to state that it's has good barrel life, comparing with that of T-72 is pointless as imported T-72 as far as I know were monkey models. Also I've stated that Arjun Mk1A has an improved barrel, so the curious reader, or the one who is in doubt would definitely check the citation provided, there they would get more information about the tank. Also it's better not to feed the troll as they would pull out one after another rabbit, and that cycle would continue.. it's a total waste of time. -Echo1Charlie (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Echo1Charlie I have seen your recent vandilism of infos that I have provided with detailed link,plz don't discourage others from making valuable changes. see those and if there's any issue leave an message on talk page. The arjun tanks are equipped with "SPADE" steel armour [1] . The "SPADE" armour is used for manufacturing the structural parts and base armour of the tank [2]. The spade armour offers enhanced protection of about 25 percent against APFSDS(125mm) rounds and 10-15 percent against 7.62 and 12.7 mm armour piercing rounds over existing RHA plates [3]. The SPADE armour also offers easy weld ability required for the construction of the structure over existing RHA plates.[4] Helios007 (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Helios007: The changes you made offer zero value to Wikipedia. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 08:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
That's not your job mister, if you are unable to understand the values then it does not mean that it has zero value. Its your lack of knowledge, don't Just vandilize the info which would be helpful for others Helios007 (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- You are not getting it. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 08:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
What excuse you have now??? This Wikipedia is not your property or your father's property to delete others work delebirately, teh data might be useful for someone who is interested in it,don't vandilize it like an illiterate, provide any valid info for deletions. Helios007 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- The removal of unencyclopedic content is not vandalism. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 09:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Helios007: Why are you abusing fellow editors?? –Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Abusing??? Its all about the person who takes the thing. Could u please provide me an proper statement for removal of spade armour?? The DRDO had even made the research article public and publically stated that it's been used for Arjun tank. What's the problem with u??? @Echo1charlie Helios007 (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is for improving the knowledge,there's nothing wrong in learning those details which have been released by the govt . If you find no use with it its your problem @Echo1Charlie ,we need to provide info the people ,no need to sensor those details which have been publically revealed there's no use in that. Helios007 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Helios007: You've abused fellow editors, you made disruptive edits on a article ignoring all warnings(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1033872601&oldid=1033833092), you attached malicious link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1033874544&oldid=1033873446) link to Wikipedia, I think you need to understand that wikipedia is not a forum where you can abuse anyone add anything -Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
There's no proof that it's an malicious link, if told by someone doesn't mean that it's an malicious link, had u opened at first place??? Don't Just blame others without having enough PROOF. I THINK THAT U MIGHT UNDERSTAND TAHT, DON'T DELETE EVERYTHING WITHOUT DISCUSSION ,coz thats not great thing, spending hours for searching all those things and getting them deleted within seconds makes one fell discourage. Wikipedia is not an forum where u can delete everything by saying "PLZ DON'T DISCOURAGE ME I SPENT LOT OF TIME FOR RESTRUCTURING THAT BLA BAL. everyone have spent their valuable time in contributing to Wikipedia right, tell me the error in my article I will rectify it. Helios007 (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Just fed off by these unnecessary arguments, just guide me where I did wrong I'll retify it. Just like the Barrel issue that was previously encountered Helios007 (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Per IP Quality Score, the URL you sourced is rated as "suspicious due to matching indicators of similar malicious URLs. The root domain for this URL is currently parked. 164.100.47.193 appears to be a parked domain, or recently configured which is suspicious. 164.100.47.193 has been associated with recent spamming activity." ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 10:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- At my own risk, I visited the unsafe URL and received the following error message:
- Server Error 404 - File or directory not found.
- The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
- ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 10:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- At my own risk, I visited the unsafe URL and received the following error message:
It happened to me too, when I visited that site to verify the claim made —10:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Echo1Charlie (talk)
Reasoning Required
Hlo,there , I have noticed your recent deletions of my articles in the armour section which had all the required citation neede. Could u point out the cause for deletion?? DON'T JUST SAY THAT ITS AN UNNECESSARY INFORMATION WHICH HAS NO VALUE. Helios007 (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Even though this is a waste of my time, I'll break it down for you.
- The biggest issue is WP:RS. The source you provided is non-existent and delivers a 404 error.
- The grammar and style is not consistent with WP:MOS. There are several grammatical errors.
- The tone is unencyclopedic. It is not formal, impersonal, or dispassionate.
- ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 11:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with you —Echo1Charlie (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HAL Tejas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hai Thank you for taking time to review Tejas article, I'm happy to cooperate with you.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The article HAL Tejas you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:HAL Tejas 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 Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Sixth-generation fighter article
- User:Echo1Charlie 3RR rule is not the reason. You have done this manually too. I have my personal works to do. Maybe you are part of your government or BJP's IT cell and get paid for it. As of July 2021, neither any 6th generation fighter program announced by India yet nor name of any future 6th generation fighter anounced as "HAL AMCA MK2/Mark2". So please do not add these information untill officially anounced by Indian authorities. The reality is Indian 5th generation HAL AMCA is still in prototype development process as of 2021. India planed to add some 6th generation technologies in later variant/variants of 5th generation HAL AMCA but Indian official did not claim this will be a 6th generation fighter. Why India would run 5th and 6th generation fighter program at a same time? You are the man who is responsible for spreading rumors in Indian miliitary fan community. The mixture of truth and falsehood has taken shape in your nature. Time will prove that I was right. Bye, remember me. Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you would get enlighten all of a sudden your discussion proves that here at Talk:Sixth-generation fighter — subsection "Indian so called sixth-generation fighter program"; also I didn't broken the 3RR rule I had a check on it :) (verify it) BTW I'm glad that you got the point from the warning, and here is an advice don't take hatred to Wikipedia, here our community is founded on trust, respect, friendship and cooperation. Have a nice day. :) -Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC) (htt
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your tireless efforts on maintaining the Vaccine Maitri page. Keep up the good work! -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much This is my first barnstar —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The India Star | ||
Dear Echo1Charlie, thank you for your contributions to India-related articles, especially your recent edits to the article about the Vaccine Maitri, Kargil Vijay Diwas. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, - N Jeevan (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2021 |
—Thank you @N Jeevan: bro, this is a great encouragement for me Thank you very much —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For catching a banned user's sockpuppet. Good work! ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 06:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC) |
- Thank you @FormalDude: This is an encouragement for me Thank you :) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Note
Please read WP:BURDEN as it relates to the edits. Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation... I look forward to you either tagging it as such or providing adequate citations. The onus is on you. Thanks, Albertaont (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Albertaont: I was not aware of this policy/rule, all I thought was we should not remove content but add [failed verification] template, It was a my mistake. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Echo1Charlie: That's fine that you don't know, which is why I pointed to the rule. But please remove the offending sources and add the [failed verification]. The sources you restored still do not work. Albertaont (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Albertaont: TBH those claims are not made by me, I don't know whether they are true or false. I responded as you were removing cited content, till now my understanding was that we should not remove content with citation but add that template as I mentioned. So obviously it was a disruptive edit to me. That's why I reverted your edit. Once again sorry —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Arjun {tank}
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Arjun (tank) has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the article moving forward.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Twofingered Typist: Thank you very much! Much appreciated!! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Echo1Charlie: You're very welcome. Thanks for the barn star! Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) More power to you!!—Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Replacement of R-77 missiles by Derby Missiles
Please explain why the statement about replacement for R-77 missiles by Derby missiles was removed. This is one of the aftermaths, hence it is in the aftermath section. In addition, the references are from a reliable source.
- I've made it clear in the edit summary, it was removed due to improper citation style. Please correct it, or someone else will remove it due to the same reason.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Balochistan
Hi. I saw that you are editing in this topic.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insurgency_in_Balochistan&type=revision&diff=1044292873&oldid=1043383521] My writing was deleted.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instrument_of_Accession_%28Kalat%29&type=revision&diff=1044248781&oldid=1042357934] Keep an eye on these and if you can make this right please do that. Wiki31295 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Wiki31295: Sure, I'll keep an eye on it. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
May I add canvassing other users for editing on someone's behalf is against wiki rules and also you are adding material which is clearly from unreliable blogs etc. PremijAnans (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- @PremijAnans: Which page/ edit are you talking about? Secondly I don't edit on someone's behalf, I've my own reasons for my edits and reverts and I clearly mention that in the edit summary. And yes if someone seek my help to watch a page I'll do it, and if I find vandalism, unsourced edits I'll remove it. If you still have any doubts or need clarity please feel free to discuss here (if possible, with diff so that I can explain that rationale behind such an edit or revert. Thanks—Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Special forces
Hi, with regards to the edits you made, they are still available in the page's history, if you wish to revisit them. Going forward, where possible, if you could be more specific with your summaries, it would be very helpful, ie: which source are you referring to, and if there is a quote or a page number you could add, that would also be helpful. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia! - wolf 20:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: Greetings, lets come to the point
- [5] - this edit was made as there was no inline citation to it - edit summary - unsourced content WP:BURDEN
- [6] - again with no inline citation - edit summary was - unsourced content
- [7] - source attached to it [8] reads - "A column of Mukti Bahini — native Bengali "freedom fighters", many trained and armed in India" - edit summary was as per cited source (interestingly another source attached to the next claim also backup this claim here - https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=GtCL2OYsH6wC&q=mukti#v=snippet&q=mukti&f=false page 170)
- [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_forces&diff=1044347235&oldid=1044338861] - source already states that; read here - https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=GtCL2OYsH6wC&q=mukti#v=snippet&q=mukti&f=false - page number 170, second last paragraph - last sentence
- [9] - sources attached to this claim (this -https://www.thedailystar.net/news/the-battle-for-bangladesh or this - https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=GtCL2OYsH6wC&q=mukti#v=snippet&q=mukti&f=false cited page number 170 does not states that " It was instrumental in securing the Surrender of Pakistan and the liberation of Dacca and other cities in December 1971" (please verify that!) and its edit summary was - misquoted, source does not explicitly states that 2/2- means misquoted 2/2 sources cited
I hope this clarifies your doubts. Regards —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- That is great, there is plenty of detail there and pretty much covers everything. A couple minor points I will add however;
1) since this is too much for info for an edit summary, I would've suggested (and still do) that you add this to the article talk page (just the list of info) then revert your changes back in, with a link in the summary pointing to that entry on the article tp.
2) I see that you've already reverted the edit. Typically, once an edit has been reverted and a discussion started, no more reverts or edits of that content should be made until the discussion has concluded. (Basically following wp:brd, a widely accepted norm.) To do otherwise is just bad form. In some instances (not here though), it could be considered disruptive. There's no harm in waiting for a response.
In this instance, I have gone and made these adjustments. The edit details are now on the article talk page (see Talk:Special forces#Bangladesh Liberation War (1971)), with a dummy edit then added to the article page history directing readers there (instead of here). Basically separating the details of your edit, which should be on the article talk page, from the rest of the discussion here. The remainder of this discussion on your tp isn't about the article, but about editing in general. I think you did a great job with the follow up, there is plenty of detail. If I had any further questions about that edit or the article, I would now ask about them there (but I don't). Any further questions or comments either of us may have about this discussion, should be added here, so as to keep the two threads separate and distinct. Thanks again for the follow up, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. (I'll put this page on watch for a week just in case). Otherwise, keep up the great work! Have a good day - wolf 08:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: I did not mean to disrespect you, I reverted it as I've provided the details here, I'm extremely sorry if it hurts you. ——Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- No apologies are necessary! I was just trying to convey some helpful information to you; some from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, some that is just common practice and rest is just my humble opinion. So no worries, there is no disrespect or hurt felt on my end, I'm just sorry that my messages to you seem to have caused you so much confusion and anguish, as that was not my intent. So please feel at ease now, my friend, and carry on with the great work that you have been doing! - wolf 19:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: Thank you for your valuable suggestion and opinion, I appreciates that! :) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- No apologies are necessary! I was just trying to convey some helpful information to you; some from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, some that is just common practice and rest is just my humble opinion. So no worries, there is no disrespect or hurt felt on my end, I'm just sorry that my messages to you seem to have caused you so much confusion and anguish, as that was not my intent. So please feel at ease now, my friend, and carry on with the great work that you have been doing! - wolf 19:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: I did not mean to disrespect you, I reverted it as I've provided the details here, I'm extremely sorry if it hurts you. ——Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- That is great, there is plenty of detail there and pretty much covers everything. A couple minor points I will add however;
Important Notice
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.
TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam: Sorry to bother you but which edit (of mine) made you post it here? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I hope that you have read the second line of the notice. That being said, inaccurate and POV-laden edits like this, this, and this were the triggers. Consult WP:HISTRS: I have slightly detailed the circumstances at the last two paragraphs of this section. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam: Thanks for responding, those are not my edits (contribution), I simply restored it to the previous version as the editor (Ip address) tried to changes the meaning with edit summary "made more neutral with wording and attributed rafi no requirement for several separate paragraphs of one author"— How can we consider this is neutral [10] effort for example replacing "was forced to" with "decided to" both have different meaning right? Also added content without citation altering the meaning (same diff see bottom portion), that's what I've removed and restored to the previous version. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- And here [11] this content was removed with edit summary "altaf hussain opinion as a source ? Is this some joke" - what action would you take if you see someone removed a content with inline citation to a published source with its ISBN number; with this edit summary? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- When you restore any content, you take ownership.
- Yar Khan's decision to accede was forced by regional circumstances, in the manufacturing of which Pakistan had a role to play, as agreeably held by scholars Dushka H Saiyid and Salman Rafi Sheikh. Using words like forcibly impresses upon an average reader that Kalat was annexed with military might against Khan's wishes, like in case of the Indian state of Hyderabad, which is quite false. So, I agree with the replacement.
- Human Right Activists, however noble their cause is, are not historians. We don't source intricacies of the Kashmir dispute to Amnesty; we won't source intricacies of Kalat accession to Baloch activists. ISBN is not an indicator of reliability: as long as you pay a token amount, the national agency will reserve an ISBN. So, I agree with the removal. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you are interested in learning about the history of accession of princely states, read the works of Ian Talbot, Barbara Ramusack, and Yaqoob Khan Bangash. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam: Yes, Now I'm interested to learn about accession of princely states, but I will find sources. Thanks for your suggestion.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I hope that you have read the second line of the notice. That being said, inaccurate and POV-laden edits like this, this, and this were the triggers. Consult WP:HISTRS: I have slightly detailed the circumstances at the last two paragraphs of this section. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Continued from Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder#September 2021
Users removing warning templates is not necessarily a sign that they refuse to respond to you. This behavior is generally acceptable. If you want Satrar to respond to you, maybe you should try to be less confrontational (invoking WP:SILENCE is not the friendliest way to ask for a response). And even if Satrar removes your comments on their talk page, how would posting them here make any difference? - ZLEA T\C 21:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ZLEA: "Users removing warning templates is not necessarily a sign that they refuse to respond to you" - okay if they don't respond to multiple invitation to discuss the matter on article talk page, what does that implies? ZLEA I don't actually get it why I need his consent for this change [12] which is explicitly stated in the inline citation; yet I still invited him to discuss not to cause any dispute and you know what he does? He filed an invalid complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Echo1Charlie reported by User:Satrar (Result: No violation; both users warned) with one of his diff to frame me that I've violated 3RR rule. Even after all these I've requested him to respond to the discussion, which he ignored. No more concession from me. Sorry. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ZLEA: I'm sure he won't respond until I make a change, his plan is not to respond so that I won't change the article, that's what he actually needed. His next edit would be a revert after I make that change, mark my words! till then he will only watch the page but don't respond or make any edits on wikipedia. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- If Satrar does not reply to "multiple invitation" for discussion, then it could mean that they may be trying to avoid a fight. Your "invitations" come across as very confrontational, and aren't exactly civil. The first step to resolving a dispute is to "talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way." - ZLEA T\C 15:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that ZLEA? This was the invitation for discussion - [13] [14]; ZLEA I can't be more polite than this (especially to an editor who removes cited content with this rationale [15] and hesitates to verify the claim although advised in edit summary [16] and revert ignoring the advice with this rationale [17]. Sorry I can't be more polite than this, I'm not Gandhi. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- ZLEA Also read his edit summaries here [18] and here [19] — is this how you avoid a fight (I wasn't even fighting!)? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- I see. I will see if I can talk to Satrar about their behavior. - ZLEA T\C 16:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, Thanks for taking time to resolve this issue. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please note that users have a right to remove warning templates from their own talk pages. This is not necessary. - ZLEA T\C 17:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Things escalated very quickly. I am seeing a pattern of POV pushing from Satrar, and it's clear that they don't care about building an encyclopedia. - ZLEA T\C 18:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- ZLEA I think I pulled you into this mess. I'm sorry. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Things escalated very quickly. I am seeing a pattern of POV pushing from Satrar, and it's clear that they don't care about building an encyclopedia. - ZLEA T\C 18:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please note that users have a right to remove warning templates from their own talk pages. This is not necessary. - ZLEA T\C 17:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, Thanks for taking time to resolve this issue. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- I see. I will see if I can talk to Satrar about their behavior. - ZLEA T\C 16:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- If Satrar does not reply to "multiple invitation" for discussion, then it could mean that they may be trying to avoid a fight. Your "invitations" come across as very confrontational, and aren't exactly civil. The first step to resolving a dispute is to "talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way." - ZLEA T\C 15:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Saffron terror into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. eviolite (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Eviolite: Sorry for the trouble caused, I didn't know about this procedure. Thanks for reaching out. :) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for the understanding. eviolite (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have created talk sections on both article's talk pages and informed this change, please let me know if I need to do anything else (I'm new here). —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, you should be fine. In the future the most important thing is to say that you copied in the edit summary -- WP:CWW gives the example
Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution
-- I've already done that for you. And welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here. eviolite (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)- @Eviolite:Thank you :) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, you should be fine. In the future the most important thing is to say that you copied in the edit summary -- WP:CWW gives the example
Ip block affecting User account
Materialscientist Admin can I have a word with you? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Unblock request
- Echo1Charlie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 2401:4900:264e:baa:2c97:100f:26fa:2bbc (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Editing from 2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled)
- Blocking administrator: User:Materialscientist (talk • blocks)
Decline reason: There was a time when I would have been allowed to lift this block by granting IPBE, and it looks like you would be a good candidate for it. But, we are stricter in our ways now and all I can do is refer you to WP:IPEC and commend you to follow those instructions. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Daniel Case Sorry to bother you I tried the WP:IPEC, it asked for ip affected but when I submitted ip it says "Appeal for "2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32" (although submitted ip was "2401:4900:264e:baa:2c97:100f:26fa:2bbc") Appeal status INVALID Blocking administrator Materialscientist Block reason CheckUser block -- please do NOT modify this block without consulting a CheckUser -- revert to original; not needed Time submitted 2021-10-12 05:12:21" and "This appeal was marked as invalid." ——What is this means? Can you help me? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have not gone through that process myself, as it happens. But maybe it wants the exact IP as opposed to the range? You mean it's substituting the full blocked range when you put in the specific IP (which of course may change every time you edit)? Or the other way around? Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for repying Daniel Case The process was this — I submitted my username and then selected "the underlying IP address is blocked" to the question "Is your account directly blocked?" and below that there was a box with "Why should you be unblocked?" question, I conveyed this message there and i got an appeal key "74e2a757129b639509a46be557ea5644"; I was standby on that page after a few minutes I got a message "We can't find the block, share the specific Ip address" then I provided my Ip :2401:4900:264e:baa:2c97:100f:26fa:2bbc there and submitted then the next page loads shows this message (I have highlighted that message above), It happened yesterday too. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)