Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
*Did you follow the link to [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]], Samm? You don't seem to have altogether grasped my offer. It was to unblock you immediately, and simultaneously topic ban you from pages related to India and Pakistan. The probation period I proposed related to that putative, future, topic ban, not to the block. Perhaps this is a confusion of terminology. A ''block'' is a technical measure that prevents you from editing the entire site, with your own talkpage as the only exception. A ''ban'' is not technical; it's a prohibition from editing certain pages or topics: in this case pages related to India and Pakistan. The prohibition includes talkpages. See [[WP:BAN]] for a full explanation of the difference between blocks and bans. If you're not interested in my offer, then you'd better wait for an uninvolved admin to review your unblock request. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 18:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC). |
*Did you follow the link to [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]], Samm? You don't seem to have altogether grasped my offer. It was to unblock you immediately, and simultaneously topic ban you from pages related to India and Pakistan. The probation period I proposed related to that putative, future, topic ban, not to the block. Perhaps this is a confusion of terminology. A ''block'' is a technical measure that prevents you from editing the entire site, with your own talkpage as the only exception. A ''ban'' is not technical; it's a prohibition from editing certain pages or topics: in this case pages related to India and Pakistan. The prohibition includes talkpages. See [[WP:BAN]] for a full explanation of the difference between blocks and bans. If you're not interested in my offer, then you'd better wait for an uninvolved admin to review your unblock request. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 18:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC). |
||
{{to|MBlaze Lightning}} No, I don't know who that guy is, but as is obvious from your comment, that guy must be someone the Indian Lobby here hates a lot. [[User:Samm19|Samm19]] ([[User talk:Samm19#top|talk]]) 19:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{to|Bishonen}} I asked you to unblock me immediately, and topic ban me for one month instead of six if you want. Otherwise, as has become abundantly clear now, you too must be a part of the Indian lobby I am talking about who directly block the users when they run out of arguments. And you didn't respond to the point I had raised. What wrong did i do by linking an already existing wikipedia article, which of course had never been edited by me, to another wikipedia article? or by providing a "full" statement of an Indian scholar instead of "half" to prove the bias in the mentioned section ? [[User:Samm19|Samm19]] ([[User talk:Samm19#top|talk]]) 19:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:52, 22 July 2017
Note
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 that 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.Template:Z33 —MBlaze Lightning T 04:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Samm19, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
Since you've shown some interest in editing topics related to Pakistan, we hope you'll stay and add content to Pakistan-related articles. Pakistani topics are generally underrepresented on Wikipedia and you can help counter this imbalance by becoming a regular contributor and by joining or watchlisting Pakistan-related discussions (for example, Notice board for Pakistan-related topics). Again, welcome!
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 . Mar4d (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
July 2017
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Kashmir conflict were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You need to slow down
Hi Samm, you have been editingn for barely two weeks. And, you have recieved a welcome message only yesterday. Please read through the Wikipedia policies and understand what kind of sources are acceptable, and what sources are considered high quality for a contentious subject like Kashmir conflict. You also need to make sure that the content you write is WP:NPOV. It should explain all aspects of the issues fully. Going gung-ho about Pakistani POV won't get you there. You also need to know the Indian POV, the British POV, the international POV and so on.
In this edit, you claimed to bring balance. If so, can you explain why you used unpublished blogs and poorly written citations that duplicate those of an editor that has been topic-banned and blocked for persistent POV pushing? If you do the same thing he did, why do you think you wont' end up with the same result?
Pinging RegentsPark and Bishonen for additional advice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
To editor Kautilya3: .. Thanks for the advice. But someone like you who is extremely biased, and who, on different pretexts, removes/reverts anything and everything that goes against the Indian POV, regardless of how credible the sources are, should be the last one to talk about "neutrality", No ? Samm19 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
July 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Samm19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am new to wikipedia editing and I didn't know much about wikipedian etiquettes. However, every time the edits I made were reverted for unexplained reasons, I had used the talk page instead of getting involved in Edit Wars. But I didn't know that removing another editor's message who is involved in reverting my edits without any valid reasons, from my own talk page, was a violation of rules. Moreover, I am not involved in 'disruptive editing'. All edits I made are backed up with proper and reliable sources, and are fully explained on the relevant talk pages. The editor, who actually himself was involved in disruptive editing and vandalism and pushing one specific POV on [[Radcliffe Award]] page has falsely accused me of edit war as he had been unable to explain on the relevant talk pages any of the reverts he made in [[Kashmir Conflict]] and [[Radcliffe Award]]. And then he pinged an administrator on my talk page, who he obviously knew personally, and asked him to ban me directly without any warnings, . I believe this ban is unjust and totally uncalled for. Having said that, I do admit that because of the fact that I am new here, I didn't know fully about Wikipedia policies. Now I have read them through and understood them properly, and I assure that I won't get involved in this kind of disputes again by avoiding such editors as the one already mentioned. Regards [[User:Samm19|Samm19]] ([[User talk:Samm19#top|talk]]) 15:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I am new to wikipedia editing and I didn't know much about wikipedian etiquettes. However, every time the edits I made were reverted for unexplained reasons, I had used the talk page instead of getting involved in Edit Wars. But I didn't know that removing another editor's message who is involved in reverting my edits without any valid reasons, from my own talk page, was a violation of rules. Moreover, I am not involved in 'disruptive editing'. All edits I made are backed up with proper and reliable sources, and are fully explained on the relevant talk pages. The editor, who actually himself was involved in disruptive editing and vandalism and pushing one specific POV on [[Radcliffe Award]] page has falsely accused me of edit war as he had been unable to explain on the relevant talk pages any of the reverts he made in [[Kashmir Conflict]] and [[Radcliffe Award]]. And then he pinged an administrator on my talk page, who he obviously knew personally, and asked him to ban me directly without any warnings, . I believe this ban is unjust and totally uncalled for. Having said that, I do admit that because of the fact that I am new here, I didn't know fully about Wikipedia policies. Now I have read them through and understood them properly, and I assure that I won't get involved in this kind of disputes again by avoiding such editors as the one already mentioned. Regards [[User:Samm19|Samm19]] ([[User talk:Samm19#top|talk]]) 15:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I am new to wikipedia editing and I didn't know much about wikipedian etiquettes. However, every time the edits I made were reverted for unexplained reasons, I had used the talk page instead of getting involved in Edit Wars. But I didn't know that removing another editor's message who is involved in reverting my edits without any valid reasons, from my own talk page, was a violation of rules. Moreover, I am not involved in 'disruptive editing'. All edits I made are backed up with proper and reliable sources, and are fully explained on the relevant talk pages. The editor, who actually himself was involved in disruptive editing and vandalism and pushing one specific POV on [[Radcliffe Award]] page has falsely accused me of edit war as he had been unable to explain on the relevant talk pages any of the reverts he made in [[Kashmir Conflict]] and [[Radcliffe Award]]. And then he pinged an administrator on my talk page, who he obviously knew personally, and asked him to ban me directly without any warnings, . I believe this ban is unjust and totally uncalled for. Having said that, I do admit that because of the fact that I am new here, I didn't know fully about Wikipedia policies. Now I have read them through and understood them properly, and I assure that I won't get involved in this kind of disputes again by avoiding such editors as the one already mentioned. Regards [[User:Samm19|Samm19]] ([[User talk:Samm19#top|talk]]) 15:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Hi, Samm19. I have a couple of things to say, but please note that this is not a review of your unblock request. I blocked you, and an uninvolved administrator — not me — is going to assess your request. But I have a couple of points:
- 1). Since you and Kautilya are interested in the same articles, avoiding him is hardly a realistic plan. What you need to do, and have never done that I can see, is respond to his attempts to discuss, and try to reach consensus on the talkpage. ("You, my friend, seem to have some serious comprehension issues" and "I don't know what's wrong with you and why are you trying to vandalize" does not count as "discussion". You have to be specific and discuss the sources in a concrete way. Also don't insult people.) Hitherto, when Kautilya has attempted to explain Wikipedia's principles of reliable sources, you have responded with vague unsupported accusations of "vandalism" and Indian bias. BTW, you are in fact allowed to remove another editor's message from your own talkpage. Not to change the message, though, such as removing part of Kautilya's post here — the part with specific comments on unreliable sources that you've used, and on duplicating the sourcing by a now indefinitely blocked editor (would you perhaps now like to explain that duplication?) — which changes the impression his post makes. You made no attempt to reply to that, concrete, part of his post, but merely came back with a vague and unsupported claim that Kautilya, "on different pretexts, removes/reverts anything and everything that goes against the Indian POV, regardless of how credible the sources are". If you thought the part you removed would be out-of-sight-out-of-mind, you are mistaken.
- 2). If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia in general, as opposed to pushing a point of view on Pakistan-related pages, I'm prepared to convert the block to a topic ban from pages related to India and Pakistan. Please follow the link to see what a topic ban is. If you edit other pages in a constructive way, and show a willingness to learn our principles, I would then be prepared to, in turn, lift the topic ban after six months. Please think about it. P.S. I don't know Kautilya personally, and I don't understand where and how you think he asked me to ban you "directly without any warnings". He didn't; blocking you was my own idea, after reading all the warnings (mostly removed by you) that you have already received. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC).
To editor Bishonen:
- 1) I am really surprised that of all those tedious discussions, you have chosen to quote those two lines which you think are not "discussion" while conveniently ignoring tons of relevant material (properly referenced) and all my arguments, and of course statements like "sorry to burst your bubble" by your dear friend who pinged you here and asked you to ban me, although indirectly. As for your "duplication" allegation, I had no means to know that the editor had been blocked, all I did was to "link" (yes, link using [[ ]]) another already existing wikipedia article (not edited by me of course) i.e. Jinnah–Mountbatten talks to the relevant discussion in the Kashmir dispute article, in addition to providing the "full" statement by AG Noorani (instead of half); the author/scholar who had been quoted by Indian members here to prove that Jinnah alone was responsible for the failure of the talks. It's there on the talk page of Kashmir dispute in the section 'India Pakistan war 1947'. And as for allegations of vandalism against your Indian friend, please go through the edit history of the article Radcliffe Line and also the talk page to see for yourself that why I had to say so.
- 2) Yes, I am interested in editing wikipedia. I have not pushed any POV but only pointed out the pro-India bias in the Kashmir Dispute article. I want you to un-ban me so that I can prove my case, on the talk page of course. And if after mediation and consensus, I am proven right, then edit the main article. But if you insist on keeping me blocked from editing even the talk pages of Pakistan related articles, then I will ask you to reduce the 'probation period' from six months to one month.
PS: You should have warned me, at least once, before blocking me for an indefinite period Regards Samm19 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- The more I read his comments, the more I'm convinced that this account is a rather blatant sock of Faizan. —MBlaze Lightning T 18:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Did you follow the link to topic ban, Samm? You don't seem to have altogether grasped my offer. It was to unblock you immediately, and simultaneously topic ban you from pages related to India and Pakistan. The probation period I proposed related to that putative, future, topic ban, not to the block. Perhaps this is a confusion of terminology. A block is a technical measure that prevents you from editing the entire site, with your own talkpage as the only exception. A ban is not technical; it's a prohibition from editing certain pages or topics: in this case pages related to India and Pakistan. The prohibition includes talkpages. See WP:BAN for a full explanation of the difference between blocks and bans. If you're not interested in my offer, then you'd better wait for an uninvolved admin to review your unblock request. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC).
To editor MBlaze Lightning: No, I don't know who that guy is, but as is obvious from your comment, that guy must be someone the Indian Lobby here hates a lot. Samm19 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
To editor Bishonen: I asked you to unblock me immediately, and topic ban me for one month instead of six if you want. Otherwise, as has become abundantly clear now, you too must be a part of the Indian lobby I am talking about who directly block the users when they run out of arguments. And you didn't respond to the point I had raised. What wrong did i do by linking an already existing wikipedia article, which of course had never been edited by me, to another wikipedia article? or by providing a "full" statement of an Indian scholar instead of "half" to prove the bias in the mentioned section ? Samm19 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)