User talk:Samm19

Note

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 that 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.

—MBlaze Lightning ^T 04:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Samm19, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

Since you've shown some interest in editing topics related to Pakistan, we hope you'll stay and add content to Pakistan-related articles. Pakistani topics are generally underrepresented on Wikipedia and you can help counter this imbalance by becoming a regular contributor and by joining or watchlisting Pakistan-related discussions (for example, Notice board for Pakistan-related topics). Again, welcome!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 a question on your talk page. Mar4d (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Kashmir conflict were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to slow down

Hi Samm, you have been editingn for barely two weeks. And, you have recieved a welcome message only yesterday. Please read through the Wikipedia policies and understand what kind of sources are acceptable, and what sources are considered high quality for a contentious subject like Kashmir conflict. You also need to make sure that the content you write is WP:NPOV. It should explain all aspects of the issues fully. Going gung-ho about Pakistani POV won't get you there. You also need to know the Indian POV, the British POV, the international POV and so on.

In this edit, you claimed to bring balance. If so, can you explain why you used unpublished blogs and poorly written citations that duplicate those of an editor that has been topic-banned and blocked for persistent POV pushing? If you do the same thing he did, why do you think you wont' end up with the same result?

Pinging RegentsPark and Bishonen for additional advice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Kautilya3: .. Thanks for the advice. But someone like you who is extremely biased, and who, on different pretexts, removes/reverts anything and everything that goes against the Indian POV, regardless of how credible the sources are, should be the last one to talk about "neutrality", No ? Samm19 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. User:Kautilya3 has given you good advice, including the advice and warnings you have removed. Your userpage says you are "interested in learning", but that does not seem to include interested in learning how to edit Wikipedia properly. Your edits are tendentious, you edit war to restore them when you're reverted, and your response to Kautilya above, as well as your comments on article talkpages, show you have every intention of simply going ahead doing these things, no matter what you're told. 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 09:02, 22 July 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).

Samm19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am new to wikipedia editing and I didn't know much about wikipedian etiquettes. However, every time the edits I made were reverted for unexplained reasons, I had used the talk page instead of getting involved in Edit Wars. But I didn't know that removing another editor's message who is involved in reverting my edits without any valid reasons, from my own talk page, was a violation of rules. Moreover, I am not involved in 'disruptive editing'. All edits I made are backed up with proper and reliable sources, and are fully explained on the relevant talk pages. The editor, who actually himself was involved in disruptive editing and vandalism and pushing one specific POV on Radcliffe Award page has falsely accused me of edit war as he had been unable to explain on the relevant talk pages any of the reverts he made in Kashmir Conflict and Radcliffe Award. And then he pinged an administrator on my talk page, who he obviously knew personally, and asked him to ban me directly without any warnings, . I believe this ban is unjust and totally uncalled for. Having said that, I do admit that because of the fact that I am new here, I didn't know fully about Wikipedia policies. Now I have read them through and understood them properly, and I assure that I won't get involved in this kind of disputes again by avoiding such editors as the one already mentioned. Regards Samm19 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This convinces me that you're more interested in battle than in collaborative editing. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:41, 22 July 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.

Hi, Samm19. I have a couple of things to say, but please note that this is not a review of your unblock request. I blocked you, and an uninvolved administrator — not me — is going to assess your request. But I have a couple of points:

1). Since you and Kautilya are interested in the same articles, avoiding him is hardly a realistic plan. What you need to do, and have never done that I can see, is respond to his attempts to discuss, and try to reach consensus on the talkpage. ("You, my friend, seem to have some serious comprehension issues" and "I don't know what's wrong with you and why are you trying to vandalize" does not count as "discussion". You have to be specific and discuss the sources in a concrete way. Also don't insult people.) Hitherto, when Kautilya has attempted to explain Wikipedia's principles of reliable sources, you have responded with vague unsupported accusations of "vandalism" and Indian bias. BTW, you are in fact allowed to remove another editor's message from your own talkpage. Not to change the message, though, such as removing part of Kautilya's post here — the part with specific comments on unreliable sources that you've used, and on duplicating the sourcing by a now indefinitely blocked editor (would you perhaps now like to explain that duplication?) — which changes the impression his post makes. You made no attempt to reply to that, concrete, part of his post, but merely came back with a vague and unsupported claim that Kautilya, "on different pretexts, removes/reverts anything and everything that goes against the Indian POV, regardless of how credible the sources are". If you thought the part you removed would be out-of-sight-out-of-mind, you are mistaken.
2). If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia in general, as opposed to pushing a point of view on Pakistan-related pages, I'm prepared to convert the block to a topic ban from pages related to India and Pakistan. Please follow the link to see what a topic ban is. If you edit other pages in a constructive way, and show a willingness to learn our principles, I would then be prepared to, in turn, lift the topic ban after six months. Please think about it. P.S. I don't know Kautilya personally, and I don't understand where and how you think he asked me to ban you "directly without any warnings". He didn't; blocking you was my own idea, after reading all the warnings (mostly removed by you) that you have already received. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

To editor Bishonen:

1) I am really surprised that of all those tedious discussions, you have chosen to quote those two lines which you think are not "discussion" while conveniently ignoring tons of relevant material (properly referenced) and all my arguments, and of course statements like "sorry to burst your bubble" by your dear friend who pinged you here and asked you to ban me, although indirectly. As for your "duplication" allegation, I had no means to know that the editor had been blocked, all I did was to "link" (yes, link using [[ ]]) another already existing wikipedia article (not edited by me of course) i.e. Jinnah–Mountbatten talks to the relevant discussion in the Kashmir dispute article, in addition to providing the "full" statement by AG Noorani (instead of half); the author/scholar who had been quoted by Indian members here to prove that Jinnah alone was responsible for the failure of the talks. It's there on the talk page of Kashmir dispute in the section 'India Pakistan war 1947'. And as for allegations of vandalism against your Indian friend, please go through the edit history of the article Radcliffe Line and also the talk page to see for yourself that why I had to say so.

2) Yes, I am interested in editing wikipedia. I have not pushed any POV but only pointed out the pro-India bias in the Kashmir Dispute article. I want you to un-ban me so that I can prove my case, on the talk page of course. And if after mediation and consensus, I am proven right, then edit the main article. But if you insist on keeping me blocked from editing even the talk pages of Pakistan related articles, then I will ask you to reduce the 'probation period' from six months to one month.

PS: You should have warned me, at least once, before blocking me for an indefinite period Regards Samm19 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read his comments, the more I'm convinced that this account is a rather blatant sock of Faizan. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 18:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to CheckUser, there is no technical connection, as you know. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Did you follow the link to topic ban, Samm? You don't seem to have altogether grasped my offer. It was to unblock you immediately, and simultaneously topic ban you from pages related to India and Pakistan. The probation period I proposed related to that putative, future, topic ban, not to the block. Perhaps this is a confusion of terminology. A block is a technical measure that prevents you from editing the entire site, with your own talkpage as the only exception. A ban is not technical; it's a prohibition from editing certain pages or topics: in this case pages related to India and Pakistan. The prohibition includes talkpages. See WP:BAN for a full explanation of the difference between blocks and bans. If you're not interested in my offer, then you'd better wait for an uninvolved admin to review your unblock request. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

To editor MBlaze Lightning: No, I don't know who that guy is, but as is obvious from your comment, that guy must be someone the Indian Lobby here hates a lot. Samm19 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor MBlaze Lightning: Well, well ... thanks for providing that link to "faizan", I had absolutely no idea what you guys were up to !!. There must be some serious misunderstanding. I started by editing the page of my home town of Nurkot, as I have myself mentioned on my talk page. I don't know who this guy Faizan is, but I have been discussing the Kashmir Issue, besides others, on different Forums, both online and offline, using these sources and many others, for many many years. I can provide links here, if you want. "Using Multiple Accounts" is one serious allegation, I find this practice way below me.

To editor Bishonen: Respected Sir, I accept up your offer, kindly un block me, and then ban me from whatever topics you want for any period of time. I have not, and I never will use multiple accounts, or any other means to bypass bans or blocks. Regards Samm19 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: To editor Bishonen: Just for the record, It was only after sending you un-ban request that I read the message from @Jpgordon: that he has reviewed my un-ban request and declined it because I didn't accept your fair offer. Thanks Samm19 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have removed a comment of your own I just typed up a long answer to, presumably because jpgordon mentioned it as indicative of your battleground attitude. Sigh... it's not easy to try to talk with you. But never mind. Your unblock request has been declined, and you wish to accept my offer to convert the block to a topic ban. Please note, though, that there will be no question of a time-limited topic ban, but only of an indefinite one, which may be lifted if your editing of other topics in the meantime has been good. To be frank, I've had a lot of experience of people who are topic banned for three months or six months and simply wait out the ban without editing anything (because they are here to right great wrongs, and not to improve the encyclopedia). When they start to edit again, they have of course learned nothing about Wikipedia, and not changed their attitude a whit. Obviously it's not your fault that I have this experience! But it has made me a little cynical about time-limited bans. As you can see from the box below, you have been indefinitely topic banned from pages related to India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. You are formally entitled to appeal the ban right away if you like, to the community (at WP:AN), or to uninvolved admins (at WP:AE), or to the Arbitrating Committee (at WP:ARCA), as linked below. I don't want to prevent you from doing that, but I suspect you'd get a similar reply on those boards as jpgordon gave you. What I recommend you to do is edit other topics for six months and then appeal to me (or to one of those boards, but to me is simpler). If you have been editing constructively and avoided violating the ban, I'll view such an appeal favorably. Note that a topic ban applies to all pages, including your own talkpage; the only exception is appealing the ban. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

you have been indefinitely topic banned from pages related to India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. For exceptions to the ban, please see note below. Please read WP:TBAN to see what a topic ban is. I recommend you appeal the ban directly to me after six months.

You have been sanctioned for tendentious battleground editing. This ban is placed in lieu of an indefinite block, which is hereby lifted.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of users and other admins watching, I'm making a note of exceptions to the topic ban here and also in the log. The intention of the topic ban is to prohibit the user from editing anything political or historical or otherwise controversial, broadly construed, related to any or all of the three countries, separately or together. But since I'm hoping they'll use the ban time to edit other parts of Wikipedia, and learn from it, they're allowed to edit strictly uncontroversial articles related to those countries, such as, say, biographies of Pakistani football players, or film stars, or food, etc, provided there is no political connection. This seems fair to me; compare Americans who have been editing political articles in a way that got them topic banned: they aren't banned from "the U.S., broadly construed", but from American politics. When in doubt, please ask me before you edit, Samm. Caste pages are right out, as are geographical features, as they may be contested between India and Pakistan, and I can't undertake to assess borderline political implications of places in those areas. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome back!

Samm19, welcome back to Wikipedia. Congratulations on getting your block reverted.

Since you are now topic-banned from India–Pakistan issues, I won't discuss with you any more the previous issues. However, I would like to reiterate my previous advice that you need to study Wikipedia policies closely in order to become an effective editor.

Regarding the SPI related to Faizan, I accept your explanation that you copied the questionable content from another article. Please note however that there is a procedure to be followed for copying content in that manner. My next message will indicate that.

All the best, and happy editing! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Baein

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Samm19, thanks for creating Baein!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for several issues, please address them.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]