| Revision as of 10:40, 16 October 2012 editJBW (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators195,702 edits Adjusting block notice. This is what I meant to say.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:31, 16 October 2012 edit undoJBW (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators195,702 edits Other account?Next edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing again, this time for a period of '''one month'''. Although your latest edit was not in the same article as your previous edit warring, it concerns the topic of that article (the battle of Jamrud), and it continues the pattern of your editing on that article. You have removed content, without any explanation, apparently because that content does not suit your point of view concerning the battle of Jamrud. This is in line with your previous editing, which sought to promote your point of view on that battle, and to suppress content inconsistent with that point of view. In view of the fact that you have been clearly informed of the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions concerning editing in this topic area, and in view of your past history, you have been blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ], but if you continue to edit disruptively you may well be blocked indefinitely. ] (]) 10:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC) </div> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing again, this time for a period of '''one month'''. Although your latest edit was not in the same article as your previous edit warring, it concerns the topic of that article (the battle of Jamrud), and it continues the pattern of your editing on that article. You have removed content, without any explanation, apparently because that content does not suit your point of view concerning the battle of Jamrud. This is in line with your previous editing, which sought to promote your point of view on that battle, and to suppress content inconsistent with that point of view. In view of the fact that you have been clearly informed of the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions concerning editing in this topic area, and in view of your past history, you have been blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ], but if you continue to edit disruptively you may well be blocked indefinitely. ] (]) 10:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC) </div> | ||
| *I see that on your talk page you have written "JUST GIVE THE ANSWERS OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD ASKED YOU", but this account had, at that time, never asked any questions. To help me understand what is going on, can you tell me what account you used to ask the questions, and perhaps also what the questions were? ] (]) 20:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:31, 16 October 2012
Afghan victory
The Afghans declared victory after killing top commander Hari Singh Nalwa who was making threats of invading what is now Afghanistan. This is well documented. Leaving the scene of the action doesn't mean they got defeated. They had a chance to finish off all the Sikhs but ran outta ammo and supplies, and were busy fighting with the Persians in the western Afghan city of Herat and with internal fighting between each other. Their objective was to kill Hari Nalwa Singh which was accomplished.--(talk/Shahzadapashtun) 09:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
September 2012
Hello, I'm 86.169.208.209. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Battle of Jamrud shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. SMS 15:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring at Battle of Jamrud
It seems you may have broken the WP:3RR rule on this article by reverting four times in 24 hours. To avoid a block, please stop reverting the article and take your concerns to the article talk page. See WP:SIGNATURE for how to sign your comments. Please do not write in all caps - it suggests you are a beginner. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Kansas Bear. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Defensor Ursa 04:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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.
After breaking the WP:3RR rule on September 8 and 9, you have ignored warnings and returned to Battle of Jamrud, reverting again while accusing others of vandalism in your edit summary. You have never posted to an article talk page. If you continue on the present course, it is likely that you will be indefinitely blocked from Misplaced Pages. If you have some background on these topics, you may be able to make a contribution, but the way you are proceeding is very unlikely to succeed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
File:YesThe Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. 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 "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
— EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see that on your talk page you have written "JUST GIVE THE ANSWERS OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD ASKED YOU", but this account had, at that time, never asked any questions. To help me understand what is going on, can you tell me what account you used to ask the questions, and perhaps also what the questions were? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)