User talk:F-INSAS

Welcome!

Hello, F-INSAS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Thomas.W ^talk 10:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I was previously editing on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 without Logging in, so I Created My first wiki account. Two users User:Zadon19 and User:MCIWS were blocked by Administrators Yesterday for continuously WP:WAR see - this, Now User:Zadon19 has come up with his sock 101.50.118.182 (talk) and continued to make unconstructive edits on Indo Pak articles see Edit History of Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 , WP:POV , WP:WAR, he's been reverted more than 9Times by Editors including twice by an Administrator in less then one Hour. An Indefinite Block to Both these socks will be necessary to prevent wiki articles from Vandalism. Also He continued to remove sourced content even after getting warning twice by the Administrators on his talk page, so his this edit should be reverted, since he removed sourced contents F-INSAS (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You should report this to wp:ANEW (edit warring) or wp:SPI (socking). Please stay calm. The less you get involved, the easier it will be for admins to fix the problem. Good luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Thomas.W ^talk 10:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. Thomas.W ^talk 16:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned for edit-warring, and now you are blocked. Whose sock you are I don't know, but you're obviously not a first-time editor. JamesBWatson, Winner 42, I wonder if you have an opinion on this, in relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astral Prince/Archive. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: First, looking at behavioural evidence, I decided that this account is a glaringly obvious sockpuppet of MCIWS. I then looked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25 and saw that CheckUser evidence confirmed that. In my view, that moves it from glaringly obvious to blindingly obvious. Whether Astral Prince is the same person, I don't know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: What's after "blindingly obvious"? Drmies, see my note at the KnightWarrior25 SPI regarding Astral Prince.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: What's after "blindingly obvious"? I'm not sure, but maybe it's "deafeningly obvious", because the noise of quacking is so loud. I almost had to use ear muffs to cope with the quacking in this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my single account and I don't even know them. The socks of zadon attacked the page and I was left with no option but to revert them F-INSAS (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. You're all idiots, on all sides of this idiotic dispute. Grow up. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]