User talk:Mrt3366/Archive 9

3746:. However, I think your point about "governance" is a valid priority, if only those in charge were more objective and pro-active to stop the games. The core concept behind "consensus" was to be a near unanimous consent, focused around a mutual compromise agreement, of editors working together in good faith (not insulting others, or else removed from the agreement). The deduction I have used is: "Two people discuss an issue, and one says they have reached consensus but the other disagrees". The way true "consensus" would stop the committee could be a lone voice insisting, "I object" and then the decision would be stopped, until a true consensus was formed. Unfortunately, such mutual agreements (as compromises) are very time-consuming, and the result in practice has been, instead, "We discussed this issue in an RfC last year which established consensus, and 1269: 4989: 4723: 4684: 4104: 3687: 3619: 3354: 2137: 1213: 1172: 1104: 128: 31: 1038: 5815: 1306: 914: 713: 671: 5423: 5232: 2210: 3762:"disruptive" to so-called harmony on Knowledge. So, we are back to "governance" which depends on fair-minded admins to police the consensus games, and declare "consensus dissolved" when dissenters say no. Hence, I think the solution is to have more fair-minded admins, and they could block the biased admins who do not respect a broad consensus which includes most people but instead favor the majority-vote style of powergames. - 4885: 5037: 948: 3814: 3245:, while it was renamed to Tiruvarunai without any discussion/rationale. I reverted to the original. Also i am really suprised that renaming is so easy, while reverting to original results in a warning. Infact none of the history will be lost for the new name(as there would be hardly any) as well as the old name as it is a redirect. Please revert to the original "Tiruvannamalai". Thanks a lot in advance. 4958: 629: 4917: 1952: 541: 510: 5329:. I did not, I certainly will not violate any policy willingly. I got frustrated and angry at his abominable behaviour, I shamefully admit, that's why I forgot to stay positive. I don't know what else to say. It won't happen again. Actually any block is very embarrassing for an adult like me. Whatever wrong happened won't happen again. 4301:. If you're so exhausted just by coming across a few of the controversial articles then imagine the level of frustration a guy like me must be bearing when his ardent pleas for intervention from uninvolved admins, editors are treated like pariah and met with absolute inaction and silence, sometimes retribution even! (Read 5662:"DS was edit warring simultaneously at two articles at the same time with the same figures. Good thing I didn't see it when I dished out this block or I would have made it a month. EW does not require 3 reverts for a block. You were blatantly baiting MrT and editing without discussion. That's not acceptable." 6284:

for trying, I notice he said, "like everyone else I'm a volunteer and I'm not spending my limited wiki-time on sorting out MrT's need while he is justifiably blocked." I guess that settles it then. He is in no obligated to pay heed to my requests, courtesy is very under-rated these-days. Just for the

4310:

I occasionally succumb to the calls from my conscience which sometimes is misconstrued before hand by bleeding-heart liberals as a just cause to frame me as equally culpable as the one I am opposing, but that's not the reality. I don't agree with the sanctimoniously even-handed philosophy of treating

4200:

Sarvajna I know you and Mrt have tag team relationship and use this to push your pro Indian and anti pakistani pov on articles but I am shocked that you try and endorse such ridiculous pov pushing on minorities in pakistan considering your all bleeding hearts and victimised on the anti-Muslim pogroms

2407:

I don't remember interacting with a person from this IP-address. Well, if you're a known editor to me and inadvertently logged out, then kindly log in and put in the request again. Till then, for various concerns, I cannot allow you to send me an email. I have received a whole slew of unwanted emails

5712:

I have to admit that this is my fault. I was about to protect the page yesterday morning before someone got blocked but got called away and you were all blocked by the time I got back. Protection is a much better alternative than blocking when established editors are edit warring but not every admin

3453:

To educate you on pograms should you wish to learn. I suspect your mind is closed, but can perhaps be opened. I am quite willing to teach you on this if you wish, feel free to use my talk page, you will however have no option but to accept the truth because in the end, that is all that is ever left.

4831:

It is discussions like this one about the extremely biased article title "antimuslim progromos" which make me believe that wikipedia is a waste of time. Something I have already known of course. But it is not something that happened overnight, it has always been like this, compare with this article

4397:

I'm still waiting for that edit of you that demonstrates some sign of good will and willingness to really move the text in the direction of more neutrality. You seem still to be implying that you don't understand the need for doing so. That's a pretty bad sign, and makes the prospect of a topic ban

4236:

I and MrT do contribute to similar articles sometimes but I am not involved in any pakistan related articles currently.Saying that I am trying to push some anti-pakistani pov is nonsense. I might have made some made some comments on some articles related to Indo-Pak conflicts sometimes but I do not

3264:

steps to undo a move (while keeping history intact), I believe it is not that skewed in favour of the initial mover. I have, in past, been reverted immediately after a move (by a non-admin). I think the crux of it all is that one should avoid altering the contents of target page or redirect in case

4179:

That may well be the case, but Mrt wasn't merely invoking the revert-a-banned-user rule, but was also explicitly endorsing the content in question as "valid" (see his edit summary), turning a blind eye to its obvious, gross tendentiousness. This, from an editor who at the same time complains about

4339:

Final warning. The material you just reinserted is crammed full with expressions such as "tyranny against religious minorities", "miserable", "bloody violence" and so on. I believe that not even you, if you are an intelligent person, could possibly believe this is a neutral treatment. It is not a

3021:

is a blatently false assertion. I reverted your addition of that see also. I had not seen the one to Saffron terror, which belongs there as it was hindu nationalists who carried out the pogrom. I did not re-add Anti- Muslim pogroms in India as I was reverting your addition of an inappropriate see

782:

I'm curious why you hold that strange opinion. The community has shown, without question, that the topic of "Civilization Jihad" is most certainly inconsequential and insignificant due to the paucity of reliable sources. How could you arrive at the opposite conclusion? And based on your recent

216:

Although Good articles do not have to be of the same standard as the featured articles, the quality expectation from GAs are fairly high. Importantly, the GA criteria are a standard, not the opinion of individual reviewers. Hence it doesn't provide much leeway in this regard, I think you ought to

2213:

It is a violation of Knowledge rules to give warnings without any concrete reason. You are liable to be banned or blocked if you give a warning without a good reason. I have explained on my talk page why you made an error by giving me a warning on my talk page. Please do not do this again unless

1609:

Go for a cup of tea, turn off your computer, just leave till you calm down. Logged in to see not one, not two, but three huge shouty edit summaries. You need some time off, please take it. You are also at 3RR, is this really the best course of action when there is an open ANI thread about you?

6160:

That mention thing is really flawed. I never got any notification when you mentioned me. And, i have no fascination for richer or fairer. Rich, maybe. Fairer, never! Modi article is just gone way out of control. I simply reinstated that request because some IP and new editor were interested in

4476:

Sorry, no. I think I have been quite explicit in explaining what is wrong with your editing. We expect a basic level of competence from our editors, so I'd expect you to understand what I said. Oh, and just so you can't say you weren't warned properly, the relevant Arbcom decision is at

6207:

You should caution RP about that. If the sources support it, which they do I think, then that claim is important and indispensable to the article there is no need for discussion, verifiability is the threshold. Whether it should be placed in the lead or not, that is another thing.

3738:" as "management by self-appointed committee" rather than control by a broad consensus of active Wikipedians. To overcome the current powerplays, in gaming the consensus viewpoints, I think Knowledge will need to run wide-ranging user surveys to gain "1,001 random opinions" (3% 2637:, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This is a non administrator notification, and will be logged as such on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. 3134:, saw you had added an inappropriate see alos and reverted it. That is not an "excuse" it is the facts of the matter. Now you can correct your misrepresentation on Ed's talk page or not, I personally am going back to editing and creating Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. 6136:? He can comment as a normal editor but shouldn't edit that fully protected page. Edit requests for fully protected pages must be handled by an administrator. since RP is involved and can't use his admin power there, he shouldn't decline or accept the requests. 3541:(ec)I am so terribly sorry for my typographical error, however shall I live that down? Your response to my offer has shown me but one thing, I was entirely correct in my previous assessment of you. Good luck, you are most certainly going to require it. 2408:

ranging from spams to death-threats from people who claim to be Muslims, even though I don't know them (nor do I remember ever conversing with them). I have had enough of this malarkey. If you really have something important to say to me, say it here.

2785:

Since the whole warning thing has now been turned into a farce, I would like to be aware of my misconduct and counseled on how to avoid getting blocked for this. Kindly an uninvolved editor explain to me what I did that was unacceptable. Where have I

5924: 194:'s GA nomination. I should address a few of the points you raised. The Faculty section does not have references, though it could be easily done, because refs are provided on their personal Wiki pages. If you wish, they can be added here as well. -- 5614:

then I think one can validly claim to be in a quandary as to the right course of action. In that rush I lost sight of what's right and what's not. I angrily kept on reverting him in a hurry, he was not amenable to discussion, not to me, not

3422:

Also, what's up with all the unsubstantiated accusations?? In case of any other controversial Politician, do we leave unfounded accusations and nullified allegations in the lead? No. Why is Modi article an exception to this nice rule of

6224:, hell yes, but there is no ambiguity that it's one man's opinion. It's another debate that the line shouldn't be there to begin with but that doesn't justify the "clarify" tag. The article already has POV and TONE tag at the very top. 3469:"pograms"? hahaha...You cannot even spell pogroms correctly, let alone educate me about it. This is the last time I am willing to listen to your nonsense. I don't care what you believe or anyone believes. Those are not the common names. 2462:

May be we can stop the discussion about the controversy thing as of now, there are discussions on other forums, may be we can take it up on article talk page when those discussions either get results or get archived without any

5545: 2625:. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " 3968:

Mrt please stop your vandalism edits and refrain from removing legitimate tags from articles do not engage in edit wars due to your nationalistic indian pov and one last time adding tags is not vandalism go read rules first

775:

This article is about as consequential a subject as, say, geocentric model, Historicity of Jesus or The Bible, now we may quibble about the veracity of it all or try to label it as "garble", whatever that may be, it is not

6161:

getting it done and procedural problems were present in it. I never would have bothered myself to get any addition as i know that getting the article rot and stale is the main motive of those we-are-so-neutral editors. §§

356: 3187:, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the 5765:, is it really necessary to extend this drudgery for 7 more hours? I already said I regret what I did, I really do. I am contrite. I am not angry any more. I thought that the block is not punitive, why am I being 2838:

This is all from one talk page BTW and violates principle 1 of the committee's findings. Want more? Do you even realize how often you edit war? Or comment on editors, and then accuse them of what you yourself do?

3988:" - or tag bombing? Tagging should be the last resort. Unjustified tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing. Editors who engage in tag bombing after being asked to stop may be blocked from editing Knowledge. 1873:

Well, repeated removal of sourced and relevant content with arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with policy is hall mark of Vandalism. 3RR doesn't cover that. Okay! You sit back and do nothing? Wow man just

569:

hehe of course...however, I thought I should let you know..:) BTW I'm pretty sure the GAN will pass soon..the article looks fantastic now.. ;) BTW we must start work on any other article...I plan to give up on

5049: 5036: 4434:

From what I've seen so far, I'd go for a topic ban from all Indian and/or Pakistani politics. I already have explained to you what's wrong with your editing; if you didn't understand that, we got a problem.

3279:. That's why such a minuscule change may create a colossal heap of issues for editors who are not as tech-savvy. I would very much like to help you, but I am also out of my depth here. Ask an admin kindly! 3876:

is not vandalism (removal of well-sourced content and that too without any explanation in the edit summary), then I don't know what is. Are you operating the IP? If yes, you need to be upfront about it.

3570: 3804: 4180:

POV wording in a different article, is a clear sign of disruptive tendentiousness. (The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the other participants in this set of mirror-image tit-for-tat POV games.)

4347:

to contribute fruitfully here. If you do, and reinserted the material knowing it was unacceptable, you must be topic-banned for willfully tendentious behaviouer. Which of these would you prefer?

4493:

What I understand is that he has issues with the wordings or source I guess, Future Perfect at Sunrise, if he asks for clarification you can provide one rather than threatning him with a ban. -

1859:

You just hit 4RR, you know you will be reported and blocked and warned under ARBIA. You should have just gone for a walk, you let your temper get the best of you, I thought that was my trait.

5669: 5318: 4790: 4447:

I am trying my best to cope with your comments. I just can't fathom the reasoning is all. Please elaborate a little further. So far what you claimed makes me wonder many things. I ask again,

1906:

I did do something, I gave you very good advice. And why would I revert him? I already explained my position on the talk page, I honestly see no reason to be so explicit about this in a BLP.

2560: 2977:- every reversal is not edit war. And like I said, edit wars take two editors. I edit controversial pages and that puts me at a higher risk of getting dragged into needless edit wars. And 4297:

the above-mentioned inadvertent lapse of judgement with a deliberate and disingenuous attempt to propagate a big chunk of false information that the sources themselves don't collectively

4478: 4539:

You turned an article into a tendentious POV screed in furtherance of a political agenda. It's really that simple. We don't want people to be doing that, so we ban them if they do.

506:...pretty interesting..both of us were callled socks of some banned one...funny. Anyway, I suggest you don't comment to the user again. It's such a waste of time(trust me on this 3978: 598:

You won't believe, I was thinking about the same thing yesterday. I was in fact going through the images in the article and thinking of nominating it. Let's do it after Arihant.

6217: 4370: 4546: 941: 2706: 5915: 3850: 5534:

by the behaviour of one editor, again it's not an excuse, it's the reality, and like I said, I couldn't handle the bad situation with more finesse, albeit I should have.

1368:

an OP-ed) when I extend it a bit further from the same source, you claim that I simply shouldn't extend the quote because that source, according to you, is an OP-ed now.

964: 5482: 5296: 2654:

gave me (Mrt3366) this notification for the second time, where each time he has been involved in concurrent disputes at other venues (first notification can be found

4645: 4502: 4187: 4174: 3735: 1835:

where I asked Sitush to stop edit warring...You've gotta be kidding me. Well, to answer your query I am asking Sitush to stop edit warring. Now leave my talk alone.

246: 5540:

angry, now I have the ability to handle the issues with more care. I think unblocking me won't be unhelpful. I have been blocked for allegations of edit warring. I

2626: 4629: 5955: 5866: 5850: 2630: 2598: 6252:

for me? I need to reconcile and explain my previous encounters to him. Getting blocked is already embarrassing enough, I don't need 72hrs to rectify my issues.

2174: 4210: 3407:

The current lead proposed by Maunus leaves nothing for the body and also adds more things like Maya Kodnani to the lead which is not even present in the body.-

5514:

myself handled that difficult situation, I regret the way I gave in to the temptation of reciprocating a bad edit with reversals. All I am saying is it's not

5414:

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.

1022: 306: 2248:

That clearly fits your editing pattern. If you believe I am wrong and that I was harassing you then you're invited to explain: how is it so? Till then read

1979:

You never achieve anything by becoming a martyr. It is bad tactics. Good tactics involves letting your opponents have the opportunity to martyr themselves.

5168: 4582: 4532: 4488: 4470: 4442: 4429: 4405: 4392: 4361: 4330: 1619: 4340:

matter of being sourced; it's a matter of you taking over not just facts but also value judgments from the sources and passing them on as Knowledge's own.

3954: 2378: 2034: 1915: 6492: 2223: 2028: 4246: 2865:

That was an observation, not allegation. Asking Sitush to be careful (well, to not be RECKLESS) is not a failure to adhere to the purpose of Knowledge.

3945:

I think this warning is more than appropriate for your vandalistic behaviour Mrt Faizan just beat me to it or I would of put on a more severe warning

2200: 378: 6518: 6437: 6372: 6313: 6266: 6238: 6150: 6104: 6074: 6046: 6022: 5971: 5834: 5790: 5751: 5702: 5645: 5572: 5343: 5219: 5158: 5120: 4940: 4864: 4836: 4820: 4800: 4664: 4577: 4527: 4465: 4424: 4387: 4325: 4269: 4228: 4010: 3933: 3891: 3792: 3597: 3526: 3492: 3437: 3332: 3293: 3162: 3118: 3063: 2995: 2935: 2906: 2812: 2765: 2689: 2422: 2359: 2299: 2266: 1969: 1938: 1896: 1849: 1781: 1707: 1646: 1590: 1561: 1527: 1458: 1398: 1323: 1086: 930: 814: 732: 612: 559: 456: 373: 328: 231: 6194: 2082: 1360:

Sitush your edits worry me too but I don't leave you unhelpful comments on your talk page. You are being biased as well as profoundly hypocritical.

4782: 4669: 4274: 3938: 3914: 3442: 2511: 2490: 1748: 1726: 1595: 1538: 1532: 1417: 883: 300: 3867: 339:

has links from the pages of the city and county it's located in. Are you looking for more to satisfy your orphan tag or is it ready to de-orphan?

5224: 5198: 5179: 5163: 5139: 5125: 4844: 4729: 4722: 3826: 3750:

to change that viewpoint". For people who want to control the rules, then majority vote (with "consensus thumping") is the preferred method (as "

3602: 3550: 3531: 3497: 3167: 3143: 3123: 3068: 3000: 2962: 2940: 2911: 2848: 1943: 1901: 1868: 1712: 1651: 1343:

is unnecessarily intemperate and worrying. You should also review the talk page, where the issue of numbers killed etc was discussed recently. -

6243: 6176: 3901:

I don't think he is operating the IP but he did award the IP a cookie, Faizan may be you should have asked MrT the reason why he placed the tag

2724: 2659: 2503:

I became aware of this controversy and article only because of the link above. The formatting of the table is wrong there and should be fixed.

1995: 1854: 1091: 5940: 4029: 4015: 2862: 952: 250: 4825: 4047: 2742: 1463: 783:

behavior on this topic, would it be acceptable to you if the community requests a topic ban for you on all articles related to Muslims/Islam?

737: 647: 617: 593: 564: 236: 5839: 5756: 5724: 5707: 5650: 4760: 4869: 3298: 1328: 6377: 6345: 6027: 5999: 5006: 4740: 4701: 4121: 3700: 3636: 3371: 2154: 1786: 1547: 1230: 1185: 1121: 935: 819: 6463: 6442: 6412: 5982:

I can not identify the master behind that editor. I'll ask CK and Spartaz to have a look. BTW, does "mention" work for blocked editors? --

2823:

Really? Violating 3RR on Narendra Modi, edit warring is disruptive. This violates principle 5 of the committee's findings. Failure to AGF

2364: 2304: 2271: 6318: 6271: 6155: 6109: 6079: 6051: 5928: 5795: 5073: 4890:

You will always get it after that. Thanks for your message on my talk. More text waiting for you there. Consider revisiting your comment

3797: 3337: 1974: 1513:

Don't worry about that, given some of the censorious attitudes towards me I was trying to be extra-cautious. Nothing against you though.

4974: 4945: 4311:

all alike, or the view that "wars are fought only between two evils"; all the parties which engage in any fight may not be equally bad.

3896: 3018: 1403: 485: 461: 5936: 4907: 3271:" - you don't understand, the history has to be directly attached to the page containing the contributions of those editors, this is a 2770: 2634: 5920: 4369:

Give me one day (24hrs), I will clean it up. Why don't you help me as opposed to reverting everything? And the same words are used in

2052: 1757: 892: 5098: 2571: 2062: 1063: 434: 6523: 5976: 5612: 1740: 1576:

Sitush is being reckless as hell. I think we should discuss BEFORE EDITING/EXCLUDING/ADDING anything to this controversial article.

503: 6214:" —maybe it's because I am blocked, in that case would you watchlist my page for, at least, the next 48hrs? That would be helpful. 4149:

edit is completely unacceptable. You guys all need banned, the whole lot of you, on all sides of this sorry mess of a POV cesspit.

2552: 2472: 1948:

Anyway, in pure jest, if I am blocked and ridiculed and/or slapped whatever people may call it, I will see it as a Martyr's death.

529: 406: 5688:

to be disruptive but I forgot that sometimes to fight disruption in a certain way, means to cause further disruption. That's all.

5607:

I usually discuss the issues thoroughly, but when the prime interlocutor says, "You seem to think I need to discuss this further,

4156: 3734:, and understand the frustrations with the current system. In many cases, "management by consensus" has become a slanted form of " 2048: 1007: 417:. I was away from Knowledge for a while and was able to go through your list of suggested changes pending GA approval only today. 5599: 4875: 4559:

is considered incompetence. I don't have that IQ, I don't understand how do you judge that my motive was to "further a political

4343:

Do you really not understand why this writing is unacceptable? If you don't, then you must be topic-banned for lacking the basic

3674: 3396: 2455: 2451: 2105: 1487: 1159: 987: 702: 4162:

I would not like to comment on the content and don't like to get involved in that article but the IP was a sock and was blocked

2015: 1569: 991: 6183:

Thanks DD for undoing my 'answered' on that edit request. Mrt is right and I shouldn't have closed it. I wasn't thinking. :) --

5030: 5389: 4293:

to do than engaging in petty mudslinging (maybe I seem as one of them to you and that's perfectly al right). But please don't

3771: 3716: 2055:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5348: 3463: 2671: 2058: 1294: 5932: 5658: 4755: 4716: 4136: 4079: 3678: 3651: 3254: 3241:

Hi, I think the revert has been effected on a renaming that was not discussed at all. The original article carries the name

2666:

supported a full-protection of that page (I can't seem to find the link). I wasn't even trying to edit war. I was trying to

1136: 6172: 5458: 5272: 4625: 3416: 2720: 2530: 4736: 4697: 4117: 3632: 3234: 3205: 1117: 5845: 5399: 4543: 4485: 4439: 4402: 4358: 4184: 4153: 4021: 3970: 3946: 3830: 3400: 3367: 1507: 854: 792: 384: 242: 210: 2730: 2169: 1819: 1747:

I don't think that I can jump into the dispute as of now. I will put my opinions once the situation is a little cooler.

1683: 5950:

views are being expressed in order for a delete of the article but this is article which is justified and relevant and

4778: 4147: 3873: 2655: 2388: 2125: 1552:

Hi MrT, just a small request, may be you can phrase the sentence in a different way ? I just felt that it might help .-

1491: 1432: 1201: 907:

It’s hard for me not to feel the huge import of the moment when you deemed me worthy of such a prestigious accolade. I

274: 183: 179: 116: 2150: 849: 6122: 5887: 5882: 4302: 4202: 4091: 4075: 3564: 3031: 2817: 2694: 2237: 2109: 1832: 1804: 1718: 1163: 156: 5025: 4833: 3567: 2824: 2650: 1254: 763: 5891: 5244:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

3230: 3191:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 2392: 2313: 5954:

should not come in the way it would be a shame if this article was censored for ridiculous and unclear arguments."

5002: 1226: 6337: 5991: 5065: 4020:

Do not twist wiki rules to cater for your nationalism that article is pov mess with cherry picked sensationalism

3131: 3078: 2590: 2523: 2519: 2498: 1736: 1689:

He deleted my edit which he could have simply moved, I think you ought to talk to him Sir, BTW, I am believer of

1438: 5554: 5552: 5550: 5548: 4087: 6459: 6408: 5874: 5385: 4540: 4482: 4436: 4399: 4355: 4181: 4150: 2674:

while asking the protecting admin to elongate the length of protection (which at that time was only for 24hrs).

2196: 1924:

are you choosing deliberate imprecision and vague claims over appropriate and clear description of that event?

281: 4255:- yes the claim was valid (google it) just the source was an editorial and, according to some, was below par. 2869: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2427: 2337: 2334: 2331: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2319: 2316: 1573: 1352: 1340: 5476: 5453: 5317:

I understand I have not played nice always, but please, Sir, empathize with my predicament. I was up against

5290: 5267: 4555:" - and you claim that it's really that simple? It's not simple for me. I didn't know that anything below an 3721: 2282: 2039:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1028: 497: 5445: 5259: 1665: 284:. I had nominated it for a Featured list but nothing came of it. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. 5896: 5084: 4995: 4988: 4636:

May be there is some more need for the discussion on the article's talk page, that might solve the issue. -

2613:. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the 402: 324: 84: 5868:

but I think that's not enough. This guy created an account on 8 of June and his first edit was at article

5631:. Here I am blocked for 3 days, these are not excuses, or attempts to sanitize what I did, but the truth. 5441: 5255: 2950: 6393:

page, not their user page...I think that's the difference...or maybe it's that you used a template. Use

6341: 5995: 5069: 4641: 4498: 4350:

Your very next edit after reading this should be a self-revert on that article; otherwise you will be at

4242: 4170: 3910: 3863: 3712: 3693: 3686: 3668: 3412: 3390: 2548: 2468: 2445: 2233: 2229: 2121: 2099: 1755: 1557: 1545: 1503: 1481: 1197: 1178: 1171: 1153: 1018: 1003: 981: 960: 890: 661: 476:

Have addressed most of the issues part of the checklist. Let me know if anything is outstanding. Cheers!

72: 67: 59: 5467: 5368:-compliant? Even in this unblock request you make personal attacks, and try to defend your behaviour. 5281: 3573:, then again on your talk page by questioning the block itself. Now, you have the gumption to claim on 3360: 3353: 2622: 1537:

I was surprised to see the reasons given for removing the information. They were completely illogical.

38: 6008:"does "mention" work for blocked editors?" sorry, I don't understand the query!? Please elaborate. :) 5908: 2483: 5245: 5175: 5135: 5094: 5077: 3919:

Faizan, don't revert my comments on others' talk page without prior discussion, it really annoys me.

3546: 3459: 3179: 3139: 3027: 2958: 2844: 2026: 1911: 1864: 1681: 1615: 1259: 1050:

I, OrangesRyellow of WPcity, hereby award thee the Writer's barnstar for superb contributions to the

141: 2949:

You know the whole point of the links it the template are for you to actually follow them and read?

2214:

there is a good reason otherwise it will be considered harassment and you may be banned or blocked.

6281: 6168: 6057: 5486: 5463: 5430: 5300: 5277: 5239: 4751: 4712: 4690: 4683: 4621: 4132: 4110: 4103: 3647: 3625: 3618: 2716: 2594: 2240:

it all. If you had read the warning more meticulously you would have found that it said, (in bold)

1991: 1132: 1110: 1103: 1059: 5544:

I will be extra-cautious. BTW, if anybody wants to check them these are the ones that were listed

5518:

and asking others to put it into right perspective, I am not generally like that. However, I am a

3512:" implies that I don't accept the truth now or in some way resist it. My mind is closed, DS says. 2116:

I will try hard not to make changes in the article and may be participate more on the talk page. -

687:

to GA which became the first Indian Warship to reach the milestone in the history of Knowledge!!!

4057: 4025: 3974: 3950: 3818: 3778:

Your comment was so spot-on that I couldn't help shifting it to the comments page of that essay.

3751: 3315: 879: 684: 625:? Arihant is done now..I'm pretty sure the reviewer will pass it in a day or two. Let's jump in.. 420:

Request you to kindly extend the hold period for this review. Will resolve these issues shortly.

336: 217:

give reference(s) for the faculty section. The good thing is that for you it should be easy now.

5449: 5263: 4926:

That type of fluctuation won't reflect nicely on me, but I will strike the allegation part out.

1878:

You could have reverted him. But you didn't. If I am blocked I believe so should be some of the

4797: 4772: 4637: 4611: 4494: 4238: 4166: 3993: 3906: 3859: 3834: 3708: 3664: 3408: 3386: 3210: 3188: 2875:

is a crime when I do it and when Sitush, Drmies abuse their editing privileges nothing happens.

2614: 2464: 2441: 2433: 2382: 2117: 2095: 1553: 1499: 1477: 1427: 1193: 1149: 1051: 1014: 999: 977: 956: 841: 768: 756: 695: 640: 586: 522: 293: 267: 203: 173: 109: 4410:

What do you want to ban me from and based on what? Explain to me so that I can better myself.

2747:

Oh, thank you, I appreciate your concern, I will notify you about any further development! DS

1882:. In a controversial article as this. Numbers don't matter, everybody is reverting everybody. 6189: 5853: 5719: 5594: 5472: 5286: 4206: 4069: 969: 152: 134: 127: 5904: 3817:

Constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to

5733:

your fault Sir. Well I cannot really speak for others, but my block, I can say, was due to

5171: 5131: 5090: 4840: 4344: 3542: 3455: 3448: 3308: 3250: 3224: 3135: 3023: 2954: 2840: 2576: 2507: 2165: 2143: 2136: 2021: 1907: 1860: 1676: 1611: 1290: 352: 2871:

What do you call that? Maybe you should also place Drmies under the warnings. As it seems

8: 6333: 6277: 6162: 5987: 5558:

P.S. if you want to ask me a few questions before deciding on this, please feel free :).

5530:

was building for the last few days, eventually I couldn't control the frustration, I got

5061: 4747: 4708: 4615: 4128: 3731: 3643: 2710: 2629:" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at 2618: 2515: 2494: 1987: 1811: 1753: 1730: 1543: 1128: 1055: 888: 788: 6060:

to come visit me in prison. He seems to have eloped with somebody richer and fairer. ;)

5900: 6451: 6400: 6133: 6129: 5878: 5377: 4982: 4677: 4097: 4034:

Ridiculous. You don't even know the difference between vandalism and addition of tags.

3612: 3347: 2969: 2881: 2868:

Drmies was instigating me to do something extraordinary and against my best judgement.

2312:

Furthermore, please do not remove warnings and talk page notices from your talk page –

2219: 2190: 2130: 1206: 1097: 344: 3583:

Leave my talk page alone, I will delete it next time I see any of your comments here.

2559:

I threw in my two cents about your question at Reliable Sources for what it is worth.

2399:

Can your please activate your mail id. I need to inform you something very important.

6513: 6432: 6367: 6308: 6261: 6249: 6233: 6145: 6099: 6069: 6041: 6017: 5966: 5829: 5785: 5746: 5697: 5640: 5567: 5338: 5214: 5153: 5115: 4935: 4859: 4815: 4794: 4768: 4659: 4650:

I am not going to edit it. What I have seen recently is really really disheartening.

4572: 4522: 4460: 4419: 4382: 4320: 4264: 4223: 4005: 3928: 3886: 3787: 3767: 3656: 3592: 3521: 3487: 3432: 3327: 3288: 3202: 3157: 3113: 3089: 3058: 2990: 2930: 2901: 2807: 2760: 2684: 2417: 2354: 2294: 2261: 2078: 2069:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1964: 1933: 1891: 1844: 1776: 1702: 1641: 1585: 1522: 1453: 1422: 1393: 1318: 1081: 925: 836: 809: 751: 727: 690: 635: 607: 581: 554: 517: 451: 368: 348: 287: 261: 226: 197: 169: 161: 104: 92: 47: 17: 4891: 2484:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics,_government,_and_law

1763:

Get involved at your convenience if you want to get into that at all. I understand,

357:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Tampa-Hillsborough County Public Library System

6184: 5809: 5714: 5589: 5408: 5194:

Blocked for 72 hours. It will be longer if you don't play nice when you come back.

5019: 4968: 4901: 4065: 4041: 3858:

The IP was edit warring, I did not see anything wrong with MrT's warning template.-

3844: 1792: 1348: 1246: 1219: 1212: 875: 866: 827: 481: 430: 396: 318: 148: 121: 4479:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

4086:

It isn't. I was with several open tabs and reverted the wrong page. My target was

2232:

you added some things, but it was reverted and you were asked to take it to talk,

6221: 5373: 4509:@FUT, Why are you assuming bad faith?? Why would I say I wasn't warned properly? 4141: 3739: 3304: 3246: 3220: 2872: 2738: 2567: 2542: 2161: 1659: 1286: 6358:

and it probably means when you're blocked, "notification-mention" doesn't work.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

6329: 6087: 5983: 5057: 3822: 3743: 3378: 3242: 3211: 3101: 3084: 3074: 2477: 2236:, that's edit warring. I gave you a warning in good-faith to alert you but you 1670: 1669:? I hope you realise how condescending and confrontational that sounds... (cf. 1334: 1282: 784: 743: 575: 4289:@Admin, I empathize with your contemptuous antipathy against editors who have 2888:

and you're quoting out of context. That is the precise reason why I asked for

2489:

The first comment cannot be read (and clicking on edit, I saw it was yours).--

1985:

belcha of S, and will go to any lengths to do S's bidding, like his pet tommy.

1268: 6455: 6419: 6404: 5870: 5506:, I never argued, not even once, that my behaviour has been up to the par. I 5381: 5365: 3806: 3755: 3184: 2370: 2249: 2215: 2186: 1690: 414: 98: 6328:

Most probably you need to link user page. I did not get any notification. --

6505: 6498: 6424: 6394: 6359: 6300: 6253: 6225: 6137: 6091: 6061: 6033: 6009: 5958: 5860: 5821: 5777: 5738: 5689: 5632: 5559: 5436: 5369: 5330: 5250: 5206: 5195: 5145: 5107: 4927: 4851: 4807: 4651: 4564: 4514: 4452: 4411: 4374: 4351: 4312: 4256: 4215: 3997: 3920: 3878: 3779: 3763: 3759: 3727: 3584: 3513: 3479: 3424: 3319: 3280: 3192: 3149: 3105: 3050: 3012: 2982: 2922: 2893: 2799: 2752: 2676: 2409: 2346: 2286: 2279: 2253: 2074: 2070: 1956: 1925: 1883: 1836: 1768: 1694: 1633: 1577: 1514: 1469: 1445: 1385: 1310: 1073: 917: 801: 719: 599: 546: 443: 360: 280:

And while you're at it, I'd be grateful if you can say a word or two about

218: 3510:

you will however have no option but to accept the truth because in the end

2863:

Talk:Narendra_Modi#Sitush.27s arbitrary and clever reversal of valid edits

5014: 4963: 4896: 4793:; however, as I agree they are off topic, I have simply hatted. Regards, 4036: 3839: 2705:

Note: This notification comes here after the discussion that happened at

2610: 1498:

I had not seen the quotes in the diff, sorry for calling it a copy vio. -

1420:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--

1411: 1380:

and keep it confined to the talk page of the article in question. I will

1344: 1237: 1037: 477: 426: 392: 314: 191: 5946:. Read the "vote" at one time he couldn't conceal the presumption that " 5526:. I do not wish my pleas to be misconstrued as signs of hypocrisy. That 2981:

should not be the one to lecture me about the demerits of edit warring.

2707:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_I_would_really_like

1364:

unnecessarily extend a quote from a source (but then you don't claim it

5672:

is the editor I am referring to. I am not picking them as an excuse to

2734: 2563: 2538: 2242:

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

2087: 1141: 3478:

to converse with you here. Do not comment on my talk page ever again.

670: 4146:

You get the same kind of warning from me as DarknessShines did: this

3563:

Darkness Shines, I have had enough of your incivility for a lifetime

1376:

things as "your opinion" but never accept that you're biased. Kindly

5205:

What is this? Did you block Darkness Shines also? Okay fair enough.

4373:

and worse uses "pogroms" randomly are you going to delete that too?

2018:); if you wish to comment there, you're more than welcome to do so. 5676:

anything that could be seen as a misbehaviour on my part, but as a

5556:. I would prefer if an admin reviewed this block and unblocked me. 2729:

I fully supported your decision to delete these names on the list

2606: 2040: 6125:, as it seems, RP is using his admin powers in a page where he is 4884: 3758:

claiming the dissenter's repeated requests to change consensus as

2859:- it takes more than one to tango, I was not the only one warring. 1054:

article and numerous other Pakistan related articles!!! Cheers!!!

6216:

Another thing, I think you should remove that "clarify tag" from

6132:. I may be an incompetent boor to some, but doesn't that violate 5044: 4163: 3837:

to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

4253:

restoring valid content unilaterally deleted by a blocked editor

2658:). I am accused of edit warring at Narendra Modi, but I myself 2339:– as it makes it difficult for other users to judge your edits. 6289:

needs, I thought we should treat each others like colleagues.

4789:

Hi, I have reverted your removal of another editor's comments

3813: 2597:

to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at

1384:

be harangued by you as to what is intemperate or unnecessary.

882:

and helping in promoting it to Good Nuclear submarine status.

4366:

Read what the sources are saying, then comment on neutrality.

4090:. One i noticed the mistake I reverted it myself, as you can 2602: 832:

I went ahead and nominated it for GA after extensive work...

578:

as it seems in a relatively better shape...What say? Cheers,

5916:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

5852:

This is blatantly a sock of NangParbat, a long-term abuser.

5009: