User talk:Towns Hill

Archives

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bangladesh Liberation War. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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.

I do not think it is an edit war at all. A lot of the information is extremely one sided. Either it needs to be reformed or a complete separate section will need to be added to explain the other viewpoint. Thank you.

@Volunteer Marek

The information I added was correctly sourced. Some parts of the previous revisions are completely unsourced. However it seems like you may have vested interests in presenting a one-sided perspective of the conflict with no consideration at all for the viewpoints and sources of the other side. In this case you are violating all of Wikipedia's neutrality policies.

3rr

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Pakistani Shia Muslims. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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.

I do not think it is an edit war at all. A lot of the information is extremely one sided. Either it needs to be reformed or a complete separate section will need to be added to explain the other viewpoint. Thank you.

@Son of ATM

The information I added was correctly sourced. BUt you have started vandalizing wikipedia by removing that sourced material. However it seems like you may have vested interests in presenting a one-sided perspective of the conflict with no consideration at all for the viewpoints and sources of the other side. In this case you are violating all of Wikipedia's neutrality policies.

January 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring, recently at Tawassul. Your lack of respect for unregistered editors per your above post doesn't help either. In my opinion, if you persist in disrupting Wikipedia, after all the warnings and shots across the bows you have had, the next block should be indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 28 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I rewrote a poorly written article from scratch using reliable secondary and scholarly references and some unregistered IPs kept on annoying me by reverting my entire rewrites for no reason at all. Their reasons given in the edit summary were incorrect and unreasonably repetitive (thus indicating that IP never paid attention to my responses and kept on repeating their assertion as a broken record). They kept on saying that I was using 'dubious' sources when in fact the sources I used were completely reliable (for all to see), while the sources used previously were unscholarly and mainly primary. It takes two to tango so the fault of edit warring is on unregistered IP who kept on citing an incorrect reason to revert my great improvements to a poorly written article. You should look at both sides of the case. IP was behaving disruptively. I asked them to list their objections on Talk but they only ever kept on reverting with the same reason and annoyingly called my sources 'dubious' even though I told them that the sources I am using were reliable secondary sources. I even attempted a 'compromise' with IP by including their favourite 'Encyclopedia of Islam' source to my rewrite (as IP demanded on talk page) and that should have allayed IP's concerns but instead it continued to seek my entire heavily referenced rewrite to get reverted. This unblock is completely unfair.

Decline reason:

You were indeed edit-warring, which you admit. You try to justify your edit warring, but edit earring is not allowed even if you are right and the other user is wrong. (see WP:EW: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable"). Also, see WP:NOTTHEM. There is no indication that you understand your mistake or that you will not repeat it if unblocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2017 (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.

By the way, you violated your topic ban with this series is edits. You may not edit anything related to Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh. Be more careful in the future please. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should remember that wiki policies are supposed to be corrective rather than punitive. Violation of a topic ban in my edit on that page might have been by mistake as the actual topic was broad and I was dealing with a broad topic instead of a Pakistan-specific topic. I think you are clutching at straws to prove a point instead of co-operating with me as a fellow Wikipedian.Towns_Hill 02:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I mention it because i noticed it. I'm not filling an enforcement request or anything as, like you say, you weren't being disruptive and it appeared to be a mistake. But it is covered by the topic ban. Just be careful to adhere to the topic ban please. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]