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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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! - wolf20:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 - wolf08:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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! - wolf19:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
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: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? - ZLEAT\C21:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Alright, per that page I am going to exercise administrative discretion (I can't find any evidence you've been a problem editor, but I can find a lot that you're a credit to the community) and give you IPBE myself so I can go to bed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I'll read that section, Thank you I'll exercise my user rights for the common good of the community and readers :) Once again Thank You very much —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG it's not my achievement, your's and Fnlayson's timely correction made that article free of error, without your help I can't think about it's condition! I've learned a lot from you guys, Thank you for your help, I owe you! –Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Echo1Charlie. I recently responded to your request at RFPP and blocked an IP that was engaged in an edit war with you on 2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown. After reviewing the history of that article in more detail, I realized that I misunderstood what was actually happening. For some reason, I believed that the IP was making mass deletions, and you were restoring them. I'm not sure why I reversed it in my head like that. Suffice it to say, you seem to be deleting large portions of the article, and another editor has disputed your deletions. Therefore, per WP:BRD, it's now your responsibility to start a discussion, explain your deletions in a bit more detail, and see if you can find consensus for them. I've unblocked the IP and reverted my revert on the page back to the IP's version. Please try to start a discussion about these edits before reverting the IP again. —ScottyWong— 17:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist It was not editwar I reverted the first edit as it had no edit summary - asking why it was removed, in second time I undid it as who would expect someone to put a redirect to an article that's not existing? and TBH I didn't payed attention to the edit summary "no such article exists", I only read the first part - that's two reverts.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of my message was to notify you before it escalated further. The IP address was doing the right thing reverting you, except for the incivil edit summary. In the future, before you restore a link, notice where it's pointing. In this case, the redirect Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistanwas an article in the past but it was changed to a redirect last week. This happens for various reasons: content merging, inappropriate content, lack of notability, and so forth. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was my bad that I didn't payed attention, my preconception due to his previous edit on other article removing cited content etc prompted me to revert that without verifying it, also that redirect was not appeared to be a piped link [21]. Now I understand that if I want to revert something I need to verify it. Thank you for reaching out to me. :) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems I am guilty of not investigating fully enough either. Upon closer examination, it appears that the Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan has been around several months, appears to be well sourced, and was converted to a redirect based on an unsubstantiated claim of original research and no discussion. So it appears the best remedy is to revert that redirect back to its original article, and restore your edit. I'll do that. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an American website, not an Indian website.
They allow all editors from all countries to edit Wikipedia.
They don't see the truth, they see sources. Don't see Pakistani editors as your enemy.
In WP:AE, you can see that there is a consensus against you.
Learn Wikipedia policies properly before entering India, Pakistan area. Don't get angry.
Wikipedia:List of policies. This page has many blue links, and those blue links will take you to other links. Links within boxes are also important.
This is a similar page which has links to most important policies Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. However, don't just read first few links, and then ignore the bottom part. You have to scroll down. Don't read and forget. You have to remember the policies and guidelines. Policy pages are marked with a green right symbol. Essays are not important to remember. There are many essays.
I would recommend, read and remember all blue links. You are going to get blocked. Don't put any unblock requests. Don't argue with the blocking administrator.
You have to keep all policies in mind and think about when and how to use them while editing.
If you dislike any editor, don't mention it by typing.
If you have completed remembering the above policies and guidelines, then you have to learn the next part Wikipedia:Manual of Style. This has more links. All links will take you to other pages with more links. You have to see whether the green tick symbol is present. If the green tick mark is present, then read the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1A46:258:A172:D558:325B:FA04 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from discussing or editing anything related to India-Pakistan, broadly construed, for a period of 90 days.
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 arbitration 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should be clear, but let me further explain that this means you may not edit NOR discuss anything remotely related to India or Pakistan for 90 days. No where on the wiki. Not the articles, not your talk page. Failure to comply will result in the topic ban being extended and/or a block from editing being applied. Hopefully a break will allow you to work on other things and learn a few things so a repeat of this isn't necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown I neither argue, plead nor appeal, I decided to take a break from wikipedia editing. :) Considering my editing habit spending hours on wikipedia, I think it's best to stop it right now before it's too late! Also I'm at my early adulthood and I've to built my career (late wisdom), so I consider this a boon in disguise. Bye, Good day. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search for a few more minutes. I hope you would get more policies to manipulate as you nedd to support one's action of removing cited content stating "fictional". Good luck. Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I already violated the 3rr rule, why hesitating? Go and report me. If the revert I made there isn't enough, consider this message as a 'harassment' or personal attack. Go ahead. Good luck. Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its called giving you a chance to learn, and not make an edit again without getting consensus first. Is this a statement you will continue to edit war? Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm a simple man. I did not get the logic behind gaining support of a pakistani editor to add something about their military might. On the other hand that article alone have more POV statements from their side. Now those who are reading may think why I don't wait for other editors to join in the discussion. But who cares? Seriously who cares to add or remove these things other than Indians and Pakistanis??
In the beginning, even I used to get frustrated. Remember that American, European administrators do not care which country is good or bad. Wikipedia is neutral. I would suggest you check how Kautilya3 edits and engages in editing disputes.
Read various debates and posts in WP:ANIWP:AN and WP:AE. You will see how editors are blocked and banned. You will see how Wikipedians think. Only those posts where multiple editors are discussing, not small posts with two editors.
Remember few things:
If I dislike any country or community as they harmed my country or community do not express inner feelings about that country or community. Don't comment on country, religion of editors.
Explanation: Your edit[22] adding the text "Members of the organisation are involved in many criminal cases including ragging, exam fraud, mark list manipulation, rape threat and casteist attack, molestation, rape, attempt to murder, and stabbing." to the lead section is a violation of WP:NPOV. It not only gave WP:UNDUE weight on them, you WP:SYNTHESISed the statement by combining multiple reports on individual cases.
Undoing my revert[23] and then posting a counter-warning on my talk page are examples of warring. In your very next edit, you de-emphasized criticism of CAA law[24]. You are adding an editorial bias into these article with such edits.
Since you were once topic-banned from editing India/Pakistan articles, may I suggest you to also refrain yourself from editing articles of political topics as well. - Vis M (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
