User talk:LéKashmiriSocialiste

LéKashmiriSocialiste, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LéKashmiriSocialiste! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Visakhapatnam gas leak

Please do not add "Rs." to "₹1 crore (US$120,000 or €120,000)" to Visakhapatnam gas leak. If your think your edit is legitimate, please open a discussion at talk page.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second person edit summaries

Since it seems like you are trying to talk to someone to in your edit summaries here and here, you should know that the content that you refer to was added by several different editors to the article about two years ago. You don't need to chastise someone who isn't here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also FYI, "Pak" is a pejorative term. Don't use it here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 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.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 14:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello, I'm Randompointofview. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Randompointofview (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Even if two years isn't recent, you still didn't add a citation to support your view.Randompointofview (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khashoggi admitted being a MB member at one point and still had sympathies for them. See Khashoggi's own Wikpedia page. MB members admitted he was still with them despite pretending to be pro-freedom. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up. You might want to read Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you. - Samf4u (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Samf4u (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning before block

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am sorry. I am here to build an encyclopaedia. I don't like being told by foreigners what to do on articles they have no in-depth knowledge of and I saw it as censorship. I didn't know I would get blocked, otherwise I would have avoided what I said or did and certainly I will avoid it in future at all times no matter what. So please consider me saying the truth.

Decline reason:

(edit conflict) You did know. You clearly received a number of warnings about this. And even if a block wasn't a likely outcome, your behaviour was still inappropriate. You shouldn't need the threat of a block to follow our policies and guidelines and comport yourself in an appropriate manner. Now, there is still a path for you to get unblocked, but I'd like to see you specifically addressing why your behaviour was inappropriate and how you'll resolve disputes in the future. Yamla (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was involved[1] with this editor getting blocked and I have no objection to an unblock as long as it comes with this condition. That this editor not behave again like they did at Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 aka no edit-warring and no personal attacks. Should that behavior be repeated, their block would be restored...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I have already said that I won't repeat it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Unlike what Yamla says I did not know I will get blocked. I only read one warning: from WilliamJE about calling an admin and didn't take it as serious because I didn't believe whatever I did was wrong. Regardless, now I know. And I will avoid reverting when someone points out consensus is against me. I'll just try convincing and arguing my point, try to get a consensus to resolve a dispute. If I fail, no problem. And also I will avoid attacking/insulting any person in future. That was wrong, but I got angry. I know there's no excuse I'm sorry. I don't know how to try to persuade you in any other way except speaking the truth and avoiding my previous behaviour. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

There is support for unblocking here, and the commitments you have made are what we needed to hear. So I have unblocked you. Please just remember that we have policies regarding writing about notable and non-notable people. And if you're ever reverted in a similar way again, just ask the person doing it, and I'm sure they'll explain their reasons and point out the relevant policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were also two warnings from Samf4u, and one from Ohnoitsjamie. They were both here when WilliamJE left the one message you acknowledge reading.

Your edit summaries about foreigners don't give me much hope that you are willing to work collaboratively. You also seem blind to the idea that, for most of us, you are the foreigner (not that anybody is bothered). Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose an unblock here, by the way. If you, the reviewing admin, believe they'll edit collaboratively from now on, don't let my prior unblock decline dissuade you. As I stated there, I think there's a clear path for this user being unblocked and I hope and expect to see many productive contributions from them, once this happens. I'm not going to review the current unblock request and it's unclear if they've sufficiently accounted for their personal attacks (maybe they have, maybe they haven't), I just don't want anyone to decline an unblock because of my earlier decline. --Yamla (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the above. LéKashmiriSocialiste, please note that no matter how frustrated you are, making personal attacks is a no-no and immature. If you can commit to not repeating said behaviour again, you might be able to stand a chance, conditional upon if you're able to convince the reviewing admin. But please do note that going forward, there won't be room for such mistakes again. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi I didn't read any warning except by WilliamJE except on the plane crash article, that I've already mentioned and didn't see as anything serious. As for my edit summaries about foreigners after I lost my cool, I have already apologized and promised not to repeat it after plainly admitting my mistake that it was wrong. If even after saying the truth you have to doubt me over it even though it's the only article I did it on that too out of frustration, there's nothing else I can do because it seems you don't want to give me a chance no matter what. How can I show you without a doubt I won't do it if you don't let me edit? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Boing said Zebedee. I will not disappoint you. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings you didn't see are right here on this page. In the spirit of a new start here's one of the more flowery welcome messages to help you get to grips with what's expected of w Wikipedian...

Welcome LéKashmiriSocialiste!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,502,919 registered editors!

Hello LéKashmiriSocialiste. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Cabayi, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Cabayi (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)[reply]

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

I know that the warnings are on this page Mr. Cabayi. However you haven't realised until now, I didn't bother to read my talk page at all until I was blocked. I don't know why this would even need explaining. If you don't want to believe me, I won't convince you any further. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

O3000 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term Aviation accidents and incidents

After seeing this edit[2] of yours I just want to give you a friendly heads up.

Accident or incident are terms used for events involving aircraft. Whether lets say bad weather caused the crash or deliberate pilot error. An accident involves fatalities and an incident doesn't. Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 is obviously an accident. Air Canada Flight 759 is a incident. Airport articles like Jinnah International Airport have an accidents and incidents section to list these occurrences.

Feel free to read Aviation accidents and incidents. I just wanted to clarify this for you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more clarification but just concerning airports. For an accident or incident to be listed at an airport like Jinnah International, it must take place at their airport or on approach or just after takeoff. That's why Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 won't be found in the accidents and incidents section of Allama Iqbal International Airport which is where the flight took off from....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue wasn't in calling it incident, rather saying the plane was "used in the incident". LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Yama has falsely blocked me for edit-warring. While I may not agree with him, I am not reverting anyone anymore. I made two reverts and immedisately stoppped after that even if my edits were reverted. User:Yamla has blocked me under wrong accusations. A mere two reverts is no ground for a block. And those reverts I only did because I thought the other user Khaliwarriors might listen with a mere edit summary. That's not something to block over. If Yamla does think it is a blockable offence he should tell me. Because I never showed any intent to continue reverting. As far as I know per 3RR, you're only in the wrong while not having done more than 3 reverts in 24 hours if you intend to revert more. I haven't reverted for a day. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You misunderstand the edit warring policy; 3RR is a bright line to cross; as WP:3RR states: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." You are not a "criminal", as blocks are not a punishment, but we must be assured that you understand policy in this area and that edit warring will not resume in order to unblock you. As I don't feel that assurance is demonstrated with this request, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:Yamla I haven't even reverted for a day now. If you think a mere two reverts is a blockable offence, can't you tell me that beforehand? Hwo are you bocking me for edit warring when I'm not even reverting anymore? As far as I know per 3RR, you're only in the wrong while not having done more than 3 reverts in 24 hours if you intend to revert more. I just made two reverts, all of them yesterday. And haven't shown any intent to continue reverting. If you think more than one revert is wrong do you have a problem in informing me beforehand and clearing up the rules? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for violating WP:EW, not for violating WP:3RR. You are not entitled to three reverts in 24 hours; the 3RR policy states, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." You were last unblocked with a promise to work collaboratively. You have manifestly failed to do so. Your comments over on Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes show a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I didn't know about that. But does that mean if I revert two times just because I think a person might listen what I have to say, it's still wrong? But I didn't know that even two reverts will be taken as wrong. You could have just told me. I have worked collaboratively. I have not shown any battleground mentality and that's not what you blocked me over. All I have done anyway is state facts, nothing else. If I wasn't cooperating I wouldn't have bothered to discuss anything. Regardless you can't use a post-facto excuse to block me. You should have just warned me instead and pointed to the specific rule where it says I can't do it, which no one ever did earlier. If doing more than one revert is wrong, you should clarify it in the policy and clarify explicitly which policy says I can't, instead of blocking me over two reverts merely meant to tell someone they're wrong, hoping they'll listen. You're treating me like a criminal here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have repeatedly pointed you to these policies. You've previously been blocked for your editing. I strongly advise you take a radically different approach here, because you are gunning for another indefinite block. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla No you haven't. Why would I be stating I didn't know about that if you already did? If you mean simply pointing me to 3RR that's not wha I meant, I didn't eead the whole of the page. Nor I knew I would be blocked over mere two reverts which you could simply warn me not to otherwise Ill be blocked. I would have desisted. Your punishment is like a death sentence for an accident the punished person had no fault in. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are obligated to read and understand our policies. You've explicitly acknowledged prior warnings, indicating you have read and understood our policies. You are required to refrain from all further edits until you have read and understood all of Wikipedia's policies. Frankly, you should be blocked indefinitely until you state you have done so. --Yamla (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if I didn't read them and just make two reverts so someone might notice, that mandates a week's block? You're ridiculous. And you're falsifying what I actually did. I never acknowledged any warning, unless you mean I said their warning is false: "There is no edit-warring and please don't keep giving me edit warring messages for no reason when I'm not even editing." This is because I didn't think a mere two reverts were anything serious especially as I wasn't even reverting anymore. You're creating a drama over nothing. I don't think anyone looks favorably upon distortion. Whether accidental or deliberate, please avoid it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for edit-warring, just because I reverted twice. Now I didn't assume merely two reverts for 331dot wrongly claims there's no assurance I won't edit war again. but I already stopped reverting, so there' s no chance for an edit war. Nor I ever showed any intention to keep reverting as I already stopped reverting completely. And I already told Yamla that if he informed me instead of blocking, that I can't make more than one revert, I would desist. The punishment is unnecessary and I have no intention to edit war at all In fact I won't even revert anyone anymore once I am reverted, since some admins seem to have such a big problem. I hope that is assurance enough. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only: as your block has expired, this request is now moot. CaptainEek ^Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Unblock discussion

Gee, if you'd left the chip off your shoulder and not attacked the blocking admin, I'd have probably unblocked you. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 14:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Yeah. I guess that commentary just is part of your battling. Leaving the decline for another reviewer. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 14:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admins gives me a week's block without any warning as to desist from what I'm doing, claims I was warned about the policy of not everting more than once despite no one having done so prior to the block, distorts my words to claim I said I already understood the policies when all I said was I was not edit-warring or reverting anymore. Pointing that out is not an attack or ant battleground mentality, but the plain truth. This block is excessive. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I'm willing if you are. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this block being lifted if (but only if) LéKashmiriSocialiste explicitly states they have read and understood all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and recommits to WP:CONSENSUS. I don't want to go down this road again, where LéKashmiriSocialiste claims we didn't warn them about a policy. It's their responsibility to ensure they understand all of them, now, before editing further. I want to be clear, people certainly accidentally violate policies and guidelines. It's reasonable to expect LéKashmiriSocialiste, like all editors, will do that in the future. But we are long, long past the point where LéKashmiriSocialiste should be learning about policies for the first time, doubly so when we've already warned them about the specific policies in question. --Yamla (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: I guess avowing and affirming this is enough. I guess we don't need you to relate the relevant stuff in your own words. Do you so avow and affirm? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. If LéKashmiriSocialiste says they have read and understood, that's sufficient. We'd be here for the next six months if we made them restate the policies in their own words. :) --Yamla (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "without any warning" is also deceptive. There were 2 warnings provided to this user over edit warring.[3][4] Dhawangupta (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dhawangupta: We've got this. Thanks. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhawangupta Tell me at what point did anyone say in the "warnings" you point out it's a blockable offence to do more than one revert? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid of this. It's why I hate interlopers in unblock discussion. It would be more productive to affirm your understanding of Yamla's points so I cannot unblock you rather than debating Dhawangupta. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. In case you ever tried to check my comments, you would know I said on an article talk page that I believe it's only wrong if you show an intent to keep reverting, in case you haven't breached three-revert limit: [5]. I believed simply saying no matter how many reverts you make it's an edit war, can make the revert limit can be subjective and made it pointless to revert if you can't do it without intent to revert more. Which is why I said there was no edit war as I didn't think 2 edits to hoping someone will listen, without any intent to revert again were wrong.

I should have read the policy page, didn't as I think it's boring. I'll try to spend more time on policies and avoid reverts voluntarily, not for satisfying you. The one really responsible for this is User:Yamla who went into overkill mode. That too over just two reverts without warning I will be blocked. If he had shown me how it's wrong and warned it's blockable even if I didn't mean to revert further, I would have avoided it. Yamla should apologize and this block must be lifted without conditions. If not get off my talk page and decline the request. I don't care, I'm not wasting my time arguing more. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. A simple "I do so affirm" would have done it. As I have failed to communicate clearly, I disengage from this discussion. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:Yamla, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I have not harassed Yamla at all. I only confronted them about their block which I considered too far gone and abusive. A week's block over 2 reverts when a last warning could have sufficed. Please remove your claim of "disruptive behaviour", I do have a right to criticize him on his block. I said it explicitly that nothing was meant as in insult, but only about what he actually did. Yes it is a dictator-like behaviour and I won't apologize for that word. Remove your warning. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to remove the warning yourself, as this is your user talk page. However, I would strongly advise you to cease personal attacks, and stop communicating with Yamla directly. You are free to use proper channels to bring a complaint or grievance, but if you use personal attacks there, it will likely be summarily dismissed. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I have not tried to make any personal attack. Don't make up things. I'll avoid calling him a dictator if you feel it's so wrong, but I don't think it was because his behaviour was out of line and abusive. Still I won't mention the word anymore, I'm not stupid to get blocked over a grudge. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing format

Avoid shortened forms of negatives; e.g. don't → do not, can't → cannot. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for such trivial things, not being rude. But sorry. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to request that others not post to your talk page, but you cannot use that to avoid working with other editors who are trying to inform you about certain stylistic issues or other edits. This is a collaborative project and you must be willing to collaborate to participate here. Doing your own thing without listening to others or at least discussing the issue is a recipe for getting blocked. Users that focus on certain articles or topics that you happen to as well are not necessarily 'stalking' you personally. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Collaboration doesn't mean "do what I want", it means people figuring out a path together without being hostile. And you are being uncooperative, creating a hostile atmosphere just like last time. Do you have any rule that says I can't use shortened form of negatives? If so, please show it. Besides Toddy1 isn't focusing on the article I'm editing about Myanamar conflict. He is someone simply upset over my edits at Burhan Wani. Why are you making up things to defend him? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:CONTRACT, which states "Avoid contractions, which have little place in formal writing. For example, write cannot instead of can't.". 331dot (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment here by CLR is hardly "hostile". It is a polite comment. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about you not CLR. You have a habit of creating trouble. All right I'll avoid contractions from now on. I don't see it as a big deal, but no problem. Next time instead of being so hostile you can simply point me to the rule. I won't have read up every one of them, I doubt anyone will. But I'll remember it anyway. And I request that you warn Toddy1 for pure stalking. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been hostile whatsoever towards you. I apologize if you have seen my comments that way. As I indicated, a user focusing on a particular article or topic area is not necessarily stalking you personally. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to know all the rules yourself, but you need to heed advice when you are given it unless you have a good faith reason to disagree, in which case you discuss the issue. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is like you have to do what another user tells you. but I only rejected doing what CLR said because it seemed needless to avoid contractions, that's it. It's just a matter of avoiding few letters and I prefer contractions. That's it. And you're wrong, a person focusing on the same area doesn't need to notice what I am doing. Regardless, he doesn't focus on Myanamar conflict. And even then it's ridiculous to think that's the reason he noticed a comment on my talk page because of it when he had just clashed with me over another article. You are continuously making up things. You know well he was stalking my edits and talk page. If you can't warn a stalker and will instead defend them, why are you even an admin? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make a formal grievance at WP:ANI if you wish, but your own behavior will be examined as well. You will be expected to provide diffs to support your assertion that you are being personally targeted and harassed, and are not simply editing in an area followed by others. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to anyone's advice and I'll listen, but as I said sometimes I don't care about trivial things. And certainly I do not care about wasting my time. Seeing the behavior of many of you admins here, I'm already certain fellow admins and experienced users will defend each other at ANI too. It's not uncommon, I've also been on Fandom sites and admins often defend each other or long-time users there too. I'm not wasting my time over hopeless crusades in a place people defend harassing stalkers. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northern Rakhine State clashes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arakan Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Kamal Rani Varun

On 3 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kamal Rani Varun, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mohammad Bagheri.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon content being censored repeatedly .

Declassified documents from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library show that Nixon held deeply racist views for the Indian people and sexual hatred for Indian Women as revealed by author Gary J. Bass. [1]Describing Indian women as "undoubtedly" the most unattractive women in the world. Also describing Indian people as the most "sexless" and "nothing" people in the world . At one point comparing indian people with "African blacks " , stating that atleast they have an "animallike charm" but the Indians were "ack, pathetic" . [1]

I had added this content , but my content along with yours has repeatedly been taken down .saying it is not important. Can you raise an administrators complaint regarding this . I am not aware how that is done . Meethamonkey (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Bass, Gary J. (2020-09-03). "Opinion | The Terrible Cost of Presidential Racism". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-09-05.

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions

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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. 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.

Cabayi (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

taiwanese view on yasukuni shrine

Former Taiwan president Lee Teng-hui pays a visit to yasukuni shrine to pay respects to older brother who fought for Japan in ww2 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-taiwan-lee/taiwans-lee-visits-tokyos-yasukuni-war-shrine-idUSSP1617120070607

Here he says “The Yasukuni problem has arisen because China and Korea have their own problems that they can’t solve,” Lee, speaking in Japanese, told a news conference. “There is no reason for foreign governments to make criticisms regarding Yasukuni.” - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-taiwan-lee/taiwans-lee-defends-tokyo-war-shrine-visit-idUST2989520070609

This article from october of this year covers chinese and south korean criticisms of a shrine visit by former pm abe, no mention is made of taiwan since they didnt criticize the move - https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4035561

Taiwanese author Ko Bunyu says "'most intellectuals' in Taiwan are of the belief that 'Japan's only sin was that it lost the war'" he insists China should "pay its respects at Yasukuni Shrine". - https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1774876/taiwanese-author-ko-bunyu-says-china-should-pay-its-respects-japans

There has been one criticism by a taiwanese president that i could find but i think it is clear it isnt a consistent position the government holds unlike the governments of china and SK - http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/twwt/t1126130.htm XiAdonis (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that has anything at all to do with Shinzo Abe's visit. This isn't about what someone else, even a Taiwanese leader, did with the shrine. Or Taiwanese view of the shrine. Rather a Japanese leader hurting sentiments of people by visiting a war shrine, and many people including Taiwanese still detest Japan's brutality in past. This is why a visit by him to the shrine could be seen as honoring his country that brutalized them. Criticism is criticism, no matter what you feel. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with it is not a war shrine. The disputed portion of the article has to do with how Taiwan views visits to Yasukuni Shrine, i think I've adequately shown that the view is largely positive or indifferent only one complaint has been made by one president that i could find, you cant disregard the statements of other leaders and of the majority of the citizenship by painting the entire country as as opposed to visits as china or south korea. At the very least more clarification is needed to show the extent of varying views in the country, if not out right removal of taiwan from the list of countries who find issue with yasukuni shrine. If you want to leave the article as is you need to show with reliable sources that the government of taiwan takes an official position similar to china or south korea or that a sizable portion of their population does. XiAdonis (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits on Tigray conflict

Hi @LéKashmiriSocialiste:, thank you for your last two edits on the the Tigray conflict. You're right about this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tigray_conflict&diff=994983938&oldid=994982564 ) these references does not say the US government, (but instead Western diplomats posted in Geneva). There was another article that said quote the US government saying there is no evidence backing this accusation, the US actually said also "the accusation didn't come from us". I will add the reference when I find it. Again, thank you for your corrections. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Earle Sullivan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Earle Sullivan, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Earle Sullivan (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Waters

Reverting makes Donald 21 feel so much better than actually making some sort of contribution to this wonderful website. Perhaps you should put Donald on your own list of people you'd rather not interact with. Liz Cheney is a bitter, horrible human being (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean Alex 21. I am avoiding them. They've been warned to not engage in aggressive behaviour or face being complained to the admins. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply but I do often leave an edit summary when an edit might be controversial. I don't if it's not controversial. I don't think for example adding about life details needs any summary. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend against that as a policy, as different editors have different views about what is controversial. Some of your recent summary-less edits have been reverted. That said, I was just here for a nudge, and I don't feel I need to push any harder unless you want to continue discussing. All the best, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well on that part about interpretations you're right and I'll keep it in mind anyway. Thanks. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrise Cullors

keep up your great work

I think this might be seen as a contradiction in the Early life and education section

At the age of 12, she was arrested for smoking marijuana.[12] At this time, she was a student Millikan Middle School, an affluent mostly-white school for gifted .....

and

However, when she was arrested, she was attending the Van Nuys Middle School, a school consisting mostly of children of working-class families and non-whites, as part of summer school .... ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a contradiction. Summer school in United States is used as remedy for poor grades, but you don't get expelled from your original school. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary ratings

As you've already been reverted on multiple pages- please stop using preliminary ratings for ratings on articles. Final ratings should be used, not preliminary. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: Those are final ratings, not preliminary ratings. Programming Insider updates its preliminary ratings with final ratings a few days later but doesn't always remove the preliminary ratings. However you can see whether they're final if they're in a list form and there's a tag called "Final Nationals". I suggest you talk to User:YoungForever to learn more. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the 'Monday 5/31/21 Preliminary Ratings' in the article but did not see the tags- I had usually been using Showbuzz (but if you didn't know, that now ceases to operate further). If that is the case, then I do apologize. Hopefully there can soon be a good source that can quickly give the final ratings though... Magitroopa (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: The "Final Nationals" tag is at the very top right above the title like the rest of the tags. Also, when you scroll down the page or Control + F and look for "UPDATED 6/09/2021: What follows are the Live + Seven Day rating results for the night’s network telecasts on Monday, May 31:" In addition, you can find "Final Nationals" tab under Ratings" tab where there are all the final ratings. Programming Insider do not have separate articles for preliminary ratings and final ratings. They just add the final ratings in the same articles with the UPDATED section and tagged as "Final Nationals" at the top of the articles. Also, if they are not tagged as "Final Nationals" nor listed on the "Final National" tab, then they are not final ratings. Here is an example of just preliminary ratings [6]. As you can see, it was only tagged as "Fast Affiliate", "Network", and "Ratings". — YoungForever^(talk) 19:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: No problem. We do use Programming Insider as the guys running it have worked in the ratings industry for years and are qualified professionals. To know whether the rating is final always see the tags which should say "final nationals" and whether the rating is in a list form. If it's written in a paragraph form then that's preliminary.

For example, this is how preliminary ratings are written: "Also original last night was “The Good Doctor” on ABC (Viewers:#1, 3.45 million; A18-49: #1, 0.4/ 3) and CBS News Special “Tulsa 1921: An American Tragedy” (Viewers: #2, 2.40 million; A18-49: #2t, 0.3/ 2), both at 10 p.m. The remainder of the evening were repeats."

These are how final ratings are written by Programming Insider:
"The Good Doctor (S) (ABC)
• Updated Live+Same Day: 3.559 million viewers, 0.45 adults 18-49 rating
• Live+3: 6.428 million viewers, 0.84 adults 18-49 rating
• Live+7: 7.063 million viewers, 0.98 adults 18-49 rating
• Gains: +3.504 million viewers (+98%), +0.53 adults 18-49 rating (+117%)

CBS News: Tulsa 1921 (S) (CBS)
• Updated Live+Same Day: 2.489 million viewers, 0.29 adults 18-49 rating
• Live+3: 2.751 million viewers, 0.31 adults 18-49 rating
• Live+7: 2.798 million viewers, 0.31 adults 18-49 rating
• Gains: +0.309 million viewers (+12%), +0.02 adults 18-49 rating (+6%)"

Hope this clarifies it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both of you- also wanted to just quickly let you (LéKashmiriSocialiste) know that I believe you messed up a bit with the source on MasterChef (American TV series) and MasterChef (American season 11)- seems that you had originally used the source for the May 26, 2021 ratings rather than the source for the June 2, 2021 ratings. (Seems though you accidentally forgot to change the URL but used the correct title of the source.) I've fixed both instances of it now :P Magitroopa (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dailypostngr

The site dailypostngr is not Daily Post (Nigeria), it appears to be some newsblog with no clear credibility. The editor who added it appears to be a promotion-only account. I would definitely not use it as a reliable source on events in Haiti. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it after checking it. It's clearly a different website aping the real Daily Post of Nigeria. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for fixing it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ministry of Interior and Territorial Communities (Haiti), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Le Nouvelliste.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks!  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 19:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KyloRen3 I do that whenever there is a edit that might be controversial, sometimes I might accidentally leave it out but that's rare. I only avoid edit summaries on purpose when it's repetitive and the edit is uncontroversial. But I'll try to leave as much as I can. Of course I can't leave it with every edit, especially a minor one. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you deleted several final ratings for List of Alone episodes Season 8 because you thought my SpoilerTV references were unreliable because you consider it a fan site. SpoilerTV sources the same Neilsen Updated Live+Same Day ratings as the Programming Insider reference you provided. The PI ratings for June 17, 2021 you provided are identical to that on SpoilerTV. You are welcome to update any and all SpoilerTV references to Programming Insider references, but do not simply delete them wholesale. The source used for previous Alone season ratings became inactive in June 2020, and it took a bit of research to locate a suitable substitute. Personally, I prefer SpoilerTV because their article titles include the broadcast date. --Rbailin (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rbailin SpoilerTV is not considered reliable. This was even decided by a consensus. So please do not restore it again because of your preference overruling what others have decided. It's a fan website. Not everything that gives ratings is to be considered reliable. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assassination of Jovenel Moïse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Tiempo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Syed Ali Shah Geelani. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2021 California gubernatorial recall election. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ––FormalDude talk 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions reminder

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.

Please remember that all edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. You can be blocked for WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

I'd rather not take this to WP:AN3, and I candidly admit that it's impossible to say for sure how an administrator would likely assess the incident, but it appears that you may have violated the 1RR prominently in effect at 2021 Kabul airport attack ([7], [8]). It may be advisable to self-revert, at least for now.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging I didn't notice it but I'm going to self-revert my self-revert anyway. Your edits are not necessary. We do not need to know minute things like ages of children killed or names of individuals when they contribute nothing important. And the laptops aren't what are being considered explosives. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. I hope you revert yourself and if you don't I will in 24 hours. And I hope you don't edit war over it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:STATUSQUO applies in this case. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, WP:BRD always applies, but it's probably a bit too early to be speaking about a "status quo" on the topic of breaking news; you should be mindful that neither you nor any other editor WP:OWNs the article in question. In point of fact, I refrained from adding the name of the aid worker/driver, but his name and especially his employer/affiliation are quite different from a comprehensive tally of the dead, and arguably constitute among the most essential components of the New York Times investigation. (One might say the same about his deceased cousin, who worked as a U.S. military contractor!) Furthermore, I changed your preferred "the packages which were believed to be explosives might have simply been water containers" to "Passengers recounted that the car's only cargo consisted of two laptops and several plastic water containers ... " because it seems to me that you introduced unsourced doubt not found in the citation, as The New York Times does not hedge or say anything like there might or might not have been explosives in the vehicle; to the contrary, its sources are unanimously emphatic that the U.S. military claim of explosives is simply false.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: There is no limit to STATUSQUO, whether it's breaking news or not. And it's been up there for a while. You don't own the articles as well. And since the names of the deceased are nothing new that puts your claims further into doubt. So I won't be following what you claim. I do not claim to own the article, but it is the responsibility of editors to ensure articles stay in line with the rules and don't become filled with unnecessary fluff. Especially I ask you to remove unnecessary details like ages of children. That is absolutely unnecessary.

And as far being emphatic goes, NY Times is not being emphatic. All it says is there no evidence of explosives which was already clear. It didn't at any point say there were never no explosives. Remember much of the information is based on second hand accounts and gleaning information from security footage. This is clearly not emphatic language: raises doubts about the U.S. version of events, including whether explosives were present in the vehicle..., And an analysis of video feeds showed that what the military may have seen was Mr. Ahmadi and a colleague loading canisters of water into his trunk to bring home to his family.

I have read the whole NY Times article and it doesn't imply emphatically the US military is false but uses maybes. Either revert your edits or I will revert it tomorrow. Thank you. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Another editor has already reverted me because they agreed your additions are needlessly wordy. I suggest you seek a consensus and try to cut down on some of the things you added, while making sure your edits are not OR. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Charlotte Johnson Wahl

On 15 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Charlotte Johnson Wahl, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:America's top Dog Season 1 Intertitle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:America's top Dog Season 1 Intertitle.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Percent complete

I don't want to edit war with you vis a vis this edit, because in the long run it doesn't fucking matter, as eventually all the ballots will be counted. In the meantime, the only authoritative source is the California Secretary of State, and she says that there are 2.01 million ballots left to count. It may be that NBC is projecting that 0.3 million (15%) may be deemed invalid. But regardless if the ballot is valid, it still needs to be processed to determine whether or not it is valid. Banana Republic (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Republic I see. Can you please provide a source of the California SoS saying that and at what time she said it? If it's many hours earlier than the latest update then we can't use it (because more ballots would have been counted in the time between her statement and the latest result update). LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Secretary of State status page. Although counting of ballots is performed continuously, the counties send updates to the Secretary of state at certain regular intervals. While other sources may be able to aggregate the results from the individual counties faster than the individual counties report to the Secretary of State, the differences are minimal, nowhere near the 4% that you erroneously report, and within a few hours the Secretary of State's counts eventually catch up. Since it's still early in the morning in California, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State's website is currently behind (and again, if it was behind, it would not be 4% behind, it would be much less). Banana Republic (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this is the link for the estimated number of ballots left to count. This report is updated once a day. Banana Republic (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Republic I don't get what you're saying. First of all the SoS county results are updated multiple times a day and I'm sure you know that. Secondly you yourself admit that the number of ballots left to count is published only once a day. But that means between the announcement and till now many more ballots would have been counted. And I particularly suggest you look at your own report because it provides dates on which the estimate of ballots were last updated. Some of them go as far as back as 14 September. Although some are from 20 September. So we can't rely on an estimate of counties that variously provided it between 14-20 September. It's too outdated. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly is confusing you, so I will explain the entire thing from scratch.

The California Secretary of State updates the vote counts (i.e. how many votes each side and each candidate received) multiple times per day, as soon as she receives updates from the 58 counties in California. You can tell the status of when each county last submitted an update, as well as the what was the latest county to have submitted updates, by looking at this report.

The estimate for ballots left to count (shown in this report) is only updated once a day, at the end of each day.

The bottom line is: the California Secretary of State is the most authoritative source for the election, even though other websites may be slightly ahead of the Secretary of State when it comes to vote counts. However, when it comes to the estimates for the number of ballots left to count, the Secretary of State is the only authoritative source for that figure. As far as I know, the individual counties do not make their estimates public, except through the California Secretary of State.

Hopefully that makes sense. Banana Republic (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you yourself admit that remaining votes are only updated once a day. And btw a lot of the remaining votes are actually old data, even days before 20 September, so your outdated count cannot be used. All of the counties are not reporting estimates votes left from the same day. The SoS just gets information from those doing the count like the news. It's not authoritative. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The California Secretary of State is the only authoritative source on the estimates for votes left to count. Whatever news outlets report, they have to receive it from the Secretary of State, as there is no other place to get that information. Banana Republic (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they don't. Otherwise the news vote count won't be ahead of SoS website. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote count is different from estimated ballots left to count, and the Secretary of State is only an hour or two behind. When it comes to the estimated ballots left to count, there is no authoritative source other than the Secretary of State. Banana Republic (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the news sites don't have the same number of estimated votes left as well. Otherwise NBC News won't be saying 1.7 million left or NY Times won't be reporting 89% vote counted. Anything else? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from 2021 California gubernatorial recall election

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 2 weeks for violations to the 3 revert rule (bright line edit warring rule), by a lot. I notice that you've had another edit warring block applied only a few months ago. [Amended: looks like I conflated June 2020 with 2021 for some reason] Please note that notwithstanding the leniency of this sanction, any future block is almost certain to be of considerable severity. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 05:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on WP:ANI#User:GoodDay edit-warring and harassing me. Of course I assume you know this. Doug Weller talk 06:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I apologize if my comments came across as bad faith. But every time I try to bring a user's behaviour to attention of the admins, it's always me getting the blame for some reason. And especially here where a user shows personal vendetta, I don't know why others keep taking his side. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller I may have been blocked from editing, but please be accurate in your accusations. My recent changes to Geronimo (alpaca) which you cite [9], were to the edits I made myself a while ago on that page on 10 September. [10]

Since I realized that what I had written about the veterinarians shortly after Geronimo died was wrong and since they were my own edits, I didn't feel a need to explain correction of a mistake of mine. I assumed they were independent, but that was a mistaken assumption and the sources never claimed that. They were the advisors of Geronimo's owner. Please do not blame before checking who made the edits. Wikipedia rules don't require explanation for you correcting your mistakes. Thank you. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - October 2021

I've blocked you sitewide for two weeks for your conduct at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by everything I said. From now on I'll avoid admins as you people never do anything about others and ignore their behaviour. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That said I'll minimise reverting since all it does is get me in trouble even if I might not make more than two usually and even if others revert me without explanation and indulge in harassment. Earlier I offered to avoid all reverts but it was rejected. Now I'll make it into a reality and just discuss instead. I won't be asking for an unblock though since I don't believe anything I said at ANI was wrong. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LéKashmiriSocialiste, RE: From now on I'll avoid admins [...] — at the time of my writing this, six editors have expressed support to having you blocked for disruptive editing (WP:DE), only one of whom is an admin (Doug Weller). So I urge you to self-reflect if you're serious about continuing to edit Wikipedia (which it sounds like you are). El_C 15:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I already knew all of them are not admins. But there were multiple admins who have been involved when we count you and Acorterion who decided to block me. And none of you did anything about GoodDay. But I'm actually referring to past arguments with admins, not just this one. In all of those either I ended up getting blamed or they didn't do anything about the problematic behavior of others.

When I said I'll avoid admins I meant I'll avoid complaining to them about anything and you know as well that is nothing that one is supposed to be blocked for. Now I've already made up my mind about what things I should do to avoid getting blocked and avoid reverting at nearly all costs. But if you want to block me again or permanently anytime feel free. I'm tired of getting kicked like a dog. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LéKashmiriSocialiste, this is to acknowledge that I got your ping and have read your latest comment. However, I have nothing further to add at this time. El_C 15:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LéKashmiriSocialiste, I have been thinking about this situation off and on all day. I think that you have a lot to contribute to this encyclopedia going forward, but only if you engage in some self-reflection and behavior adjustment. Many of the things that you have written in recent days remind me of other editors who ended up getting indefinitely blocked. This is a collaborative project, and editors who consistently say things that imply that pretty much everyone else is wrong and only the aggrieved editor is right are on a path to departure from the encyclopedia. Your comment that "I'm tired of getting kicked like a dog" is quite telling. After editing here for well over 12 years, I have never once had that feeling. I submit for your consideration that this is because I have scrupulously avoided any type of behavior that could possibly provoke responses from other editors that might make me feel that way. The three word formula is "collaboration not confrontation". So, I encourage you to spend the next 13 days pondering how you can engage in more collaborative behavior so that you do not end up getting blocked indefinitely. I hope that this works out for you. Cullen^328 Let's discuss it 00:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 I have always admitted my mistakes, even when I think I'm not wrong I often let it slide. Yet for some reason it's me getting beat up always when I complain and the opposite party whom I complain about gets nothing. It's not me who needs to do self-reflection.

For example once I complained a user who was reverting already established consensus to not name suspects and was insulting me even. Nothing happened and instead I had people coming after me.

Or when I complained users adding non-needed stuff like the peerage title of a British politician in his mother's article. Even though they broke WP:STATUSQUO and never cared to start a discussion on the talk page, even when I personally contacted them for it. Nothing happened to them and instead I was told to start a discussion on the article talk page, even though I actually already was discussing the issue on their own talk pages. Despite edit warring and not following WP:BRD they got away. But I was expected to complete some non-needed formality. And even when I did go to the talk page of the article they again refused to budge like on their own talk pages.

Or recently when GoodDay tells me he won't back me in future, all because I reverted him. Harasses me on Talk:Afghanistan where he harassed me and mocked me saying whether he should put Hibatullah Akhundzada as the "Supreme Leader of Afghanistan" even though I said to him earlier I wasn't calling him that. That's asides from him not even giving a reason for his reverts initially which is to be avoided.

You admins never punished anyone the entire time no matter how much I complained or even when the people I complained broke rules clearly. Now please don't try to guilt me any longer. I'm not going to respond to further such comments by anyone. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These "I am right and everyone else is wrong" comments of yours indicate to me that you are now on a glide path toward an indefinite block. When you write "You admins never punished anyone the entire time", you are speaking to an administrator who has blocked 4542 editors, of whom only 23 have been unblocked. So, your use of the word "never " is false, at least with regards to me. But you have 13 days to reconsider and choose a different path. Please think about it., if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. Please do not give me a reason to be the administrator to block you indefinitely. I do not want to be that administrator, but if you continue on this glade path, the outcome is clear to all neutral observers. Please make your future choices very carefully. Cullen^328 Let's discuss it 02:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I'm necessarily right but are you telling me people who are willingly breaking consensus, not bothering to discuss anything and breaking WP:BRD, not giving a reason for reverts, admitting they'll be doing things out of personal vendetta, harassing and even directly insulting people are not wrong? All of that did happen and admins did nothing, I'm not making it up out of some mistaken belief. I've already promised not to revert again, do what you want afterwards or indeff me. You admins don't even uphold Wikipedia's own policies, at least not in front of me. Please leave my talk page, anymore comments are going to be reverted. I'm not going to argue over the block with anyone. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

I have extended Acroterion's block to indefinite. Please see my post here for an explanation. I believe you know how to request unblock, so I won't go on about it. Bishonen | tålk 09:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: That's not surprising since I know you admins never actually care about those flagrantly breaking the rules, only those who dare to set things right by breaking up the status quo of people doing what they want. Goodbye, I'm not going to request any unblock. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you didn't notice, my past indef block was because I was not just flagrantly edit warring without regard, but also insulting people repeatedly. That's much different than here where I'm the one who was insulted and harassed. Then again I didn't have much hope from people who even ignored those trolling me outright. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BBQ Brawl Season 2 Intertitle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BBQ Brawl Season 2 Intertitle.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Walker (TV Series).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Walker (TV Series).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]