This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Hi Cipher21! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC) |
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.Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 10:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Cipher21, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NarSakSasLee ( talk) 20:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)"}}
Ciper21, do not falsely claim a consensus for something which has invited only emphatic disapproval thus far to resume your edit warring like you did here another time. This has come after multiple admonitions (as evidenced on the talk page). Further attempts to mislead the community or tire the good faith of others will land you at an admin noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&diff=prev&oldid=1055393147 Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 17:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
You have filed a false report saying that the info added was poorly sourced. This is a blatant lie and you can see all the sources were from US government sites or publications with quotes in them. And you have also claimed that it was irrelevant, however that is your POV, in the context of this article and the larger Indo Pak conflict, it is very much relevant. First, there is the Indian claim, then there is the Pakistani claim, it is very fair to add outsider, neutral views on this conflict as well to add balance. I will take this up with the admins for your blatant lying and agenda pushing. And if you are going to REMOVE information, especially with reliable sources (much more reliable than many article pieces on the page), then the onus is on you to explain why. You do not own Wikipedia, and think you can just get away with whatever you want Suthasianhistorian8 ( talk) 12:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia also says...- Wikipedia has said nothing of the sort. Again, I will remind you that the WP:ONUS is not on me to justify removing the paragraph - and this is what Wikipedia policy is. Cipher21 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Suthasianhistorian8 ( talk) 13:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Operation Chengiz Khan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MBlaze Lightning ( talk) 09:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Notwithstanding a logged injunction enjoining you to abstain from BATTLEGROUND/CIR
editing, you have continued to edit in bad faith, engender disruption to the project, and manifest an unabating and execrable CIR deficiency.
This appertains to your editing on 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, including your recent edit-warring therein, which has all the earmarks of bad faith.
On December 1, 2021 you added an eminently dubious and partisan count of the Pakistani casualties under the cloak of a specious restoring per talk page discussion
edit summary,
[1] using a self-published source, despite having never made the solitary effort to even sound out editors of the page to solicit their views, as that addition decidedly did not stem from
the discussion that was confined to a discourse on Indian casualties.
More to the point, however, was your mindful misrepresentation of the source (presenting what the source qualified using the sentence adverb reportedly
as a bare, cold fact count.) This was especially unsavoury and distasteful inasmuch as, as a serendipitous glance at your contributions laid bare, you had avowedly used a pretext the edit summary and the source does not state 4 aircraft were shot down, it uses the world "reportedly" which means the author does not consider it a fact
[2] to justify your edit warring on
Operation Chengiz Khan.
You have since turned to edit warring to preserve your impugned addition using as bogus and misleading edit summaries as "discussed to death" [3] and CIR laden [4]
I am hereby drawing the attention of El_C to this in view of the locus of disruption and the delicacy of the case, calling for an exercise of judgement and admin discretion. Kerberous ( talk) 17:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
"The cost for Pakistan in terms of men was around 34 deaths of soldiers and injuries to another 10". Where in this quote does it say
reportedly? If you're going to make accusations of bad faith, the least you can do is stop cherrypicking information out of context.. Cipher21 (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Girth Summit
(blether)
15:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)