User talk:Spalagdama

Welcome![edit]

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

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I just wanted to let you know that I've had to fix or undo one of your recent changes, due to a bug in the software you're using to edit. This is through no fault of your own; there are a few known bugs (link to bug tracking) in the Visual Editor software that you're using. If you'd like, please feel free to report this at the feedback page, otherwise, feel free to try the edit again and see if it works.

The VisualEditor software is a new gadget that is being tested with around half of randomly selected new accounts. Its purpose is to allow for a visual editing environment, or a WYSIWYG environment, for editing using MediaWiki markup, the technical and complicated old version of editing Wikipedia and similar sites. The VisualEditor test is only being enabled in articles and on userpages at this time. For more information, see the project page. Happy editing! JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts on talkpages[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Dispute between you and Thomas W.[edit]

I unblocked you when Thomas told me that his report to me was erroneous. Other than that, I'm not really taking any position in this one way or the other. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Spalagdama: Which best can be described as you being temporarily aquitted because of a technicality, that is me retracting a report to Daniel Case only because you were lucky enough to make a revert a minute or two before the IP was blocked, instead of just after. My SPI-report stands, and also my assessment that this is a clear case of WP:DUCK. And I would like to point out that this is not a dispute between two editors but a clear case of systematically making unsourced (and/or deliberately false) and biased edits, and abusing multiple accounts while doing it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: Sour grapes. Not a "technicality" might I add. And not me; this is actually best described as you being temporarily aquitted after you owned up to your lies, prior to an investigation showing them as just that. You filed an erroneous report, falsely labeled my protection of wikipedia content i.e. reversion of khestwol's repetitive valdalism, as "unsourced (and/or deliberately false) and biased edits", tried to summon reinforcements (which never arrived), and in the end, had to admit to your fabrications in order to avoid facing further humiliation. Now stop being obsessive, snooping in on everything I do (in hopes of twisting it around) and get a life while you're at it. Enough said.Spalagdama (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen your block upon user Thomas. W's request is a violation of Wikipedia's policies especially since its your buddy Thomas.W who has been adding unsourced content to the article Apraca and edit warning with me, making changes within 24 hours of my reverting his unsourced edits. Your irresponsible behavior as moderator and acting upon your buddy Thomas.W's unsubstantiated claims especially after moderator Daniel Case refused to act upon Thomas. W's erroneous reports/requests is in violation of wikipedia's policies. This merits action against both Thomas. W and you by Wikipedia administrators. SpalagdamaSpalagdama (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spalagdama, if you had a complaint about my block, it would have made sense to either post an unblock request for review by an uninvolved administrator, as described in the block notice above, or to post a complaint on WP:ANI when you returned from the block. What doesn't make any sense at all is to continue edit warring on Apraca and to attack me and Thomas on our talkpages. By the way, these offensive edit summaries are as untrue as your denial of sockpuppetry here; Thomas.W has never been blocked. Please consider this a final warning; if you continue your disruptive editing, I'll block you again, this time indefinitely. However, if you want to complain of my admin actions on ANI, I will not block you for anything you may say there. I can't guarantee that some other admin won't, though. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hindu Kush may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

The '''Hindu Kush''' ([[Pashto language|Pashto]]/[[Persian language|Persian]]: {{nastaliq|ھندوکُش}}, ({{lang-ur|'''حندو

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Anupam^Talk 07:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Indo-Greek Kingdom, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Caution for unsourced edits with a deliberately misleading edit summary. Thomas.W ^talk 08:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Hello, Spalagdama. I warned you in September and again in October 2013 that your next block would be indefinite if you continued your disruptive editing. Making a sample review of your recent edits, I find changes that blatantly misrepresent the sources,[1][2] significant tendentious changes under cover of "adding links" and/ or "correcting grammar"[3] blatant example here, and things like this, where you add unsourced changes while at the same time removing some very well-known facts about Malala Yousafzai (which are sourced in the linked article about her) as "unsourced". You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.}} Bishonen | talk 10:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spalagdama, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ogress _smash! 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spalagdama, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ogress _smash! 23:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]