User talk:Bbb02

Kenya

Is the Most insecure city Nairobi? Bbb02 (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb02, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Bbb02! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheema

Please see Talk:Cheema and do not reinstate the article content until you have resolved the issues that I've raised there. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hi, I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, but your username closely resembles that of a Wikipedia administrator, User:Bbb23. I strongly suggest you request a change of username at WP:CHU. While it may be an accident, your username could create the impression that you're attempting to impersonate the admin. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Your recent editing history at Cheema shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Some friendly advice:

assume good faith, particularly when it comes to more established editors who are working on wikipedia projects.
you can't impose your opinion by reverting other editor's work, you must seek consensus.
read and understand WP:RS as you seem to be using unreliable sources to support many of your edits.
don't use edit summaries to send messages to other editors, particularly when they are admin.

I hope this helps you avoid a block for edit warring. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bbb02 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: ). Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I tried to help you avoid being blocked, which is now inevitable. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you block me then what will be achieved by WP but if you save the WP articles from vandalism and getting empty by probable vandalist then that will be a real hero jobe done by you for WP. Decision is yours but justice is strongly expected. Bbb02 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be me who blocks you. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I get blocked it will by my loss so not that important but I wish that integrity of WP articles including Cheema be safe guarded by you and administrators because vandalism is a global loss and more important. Bbb02 (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions

given that you are continuing to dispute in an uncollegial manner, please could you take note of the information below. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Blocked

Dear Bbb02,

You seem to be under the impression that being right gives you an exemption from Wikipedia policy. It does not. You want an article to appear a certain way. Several other editors disagree with you. You edit warred to get your way, and now you are blocked for 24 hours. So let me make this very very clear: Being right does not mean you get to break the rules; loudly proclaiming that you are right does not mean you get to break the rules; calling everyone else a vandal does not let you break the rules; drawing up fantasies of why people disagree with you does not let you break the rules; claiming there is a conspiracy against you does not let you break the rules. If you believe that other editors are violating Wikipedia policy, follow dispute resolution and/or take issue at relevant noticeboards. If you are as obviously correct as you think you are, you should have no trouble convincing uninvolved parties. If you jump right back to edit warring after this block expires, expect longer blocks to come swiftly. You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} to this talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of LanguageXpert (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]