User talk:Towns Hill: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:06, 5 April 2016 editMBlaze Lightning (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,562 edits →1RR Vio.: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:36, 10 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(202 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Towns_Hill/Archives/Archive_1


	== January 2016 ==
	] Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to ] has been undone by an automated computer program called ].
	{{clear}}
	* ClueBot NG makes very few ], but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please ], , remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
	* For help, take a look at the ].
	* The following is the log entry regarding this message: ] was by ] ] ] ANN scored at 0.93474 on 2016-01-13T13:26:43+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 2501964 -->.
	Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 13:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
	== Welcome! ==
	Hello and ] to ]. Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Misplaced Pages:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]

	;Please bear these points in mind while editing Misplaced Pages:
	* ] – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
	* Maintain a ] – this is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies.
	* Take particular care while adding biographical material about a ] to any Misplaced Pages page and follow ]. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be ] with multiple ].
	* No ] or ].
	* If you are testing, please use the ] to <span class="plainlinks"></span>.
	* Do not add troublesome content to any ], such as: ]ed text, ], ] or ], and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered ]; doing so will result in your account or IP being ].
	* Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Misplaced Pages is ].

	The ] is a good place to start learning about Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, see the ], add a question to the ] or ask me on ]. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!<!-- Template:Welcomelaws --> ] (]) 15:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

	: Hi Talha Zubair, I find that you have been doing well, creating well-sourced content on difficult topics. Here are some suggestions that might improve things for you:
	:* Your edits are generally huge and span multiple sections. You probably edit them offline and upload the edits. I do the same too. However, it is important to keep each edit to a manageable size and keep it focused on a single issue or topic. That way, if the other editors disagree with an edit, there is an easy way to discuss it.
	:* I think you need to engage with talk page discussions more. Whenever an edit is reverted, ] recommends that you open a talk page discussion and address the objections mentioned in the revert. Engaging on talk pages will you get out of the tendency to edit-war, which is considered a really bad practice by Wikipedians. Talk page discussion will also allow other editors to join in, which will help.
	: Please keep up the good work! Cheers, ] (]) 10:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hello Mr. Butt, I notice that you have been adding a lot of text to the ] article. I haven't yet looked into your edits in detail. However, I need to point out a couple of issues:
	* You should never copy whole sentences from the sources. See ]. You need to summarise the content in your own words. If we find COPYVIO text in your edits, we will revert them wholesale. You cannot depend on other editors to separate the good from the bad.
	* You need to appropriate encyclopaedic style in writing your content. See for example ]. This problem can be corrected later by some copy-editor if you are unable to do it yourself. However, you should keep the COPYVIO issue in mind. It is extremely important. - ] (]) 09:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Kautilya3}} His contribution to that article need to be assessed. Some of contribution is good but there is some POV pushing in between. Moreover, this is brand new account who can fix references of books properly since his first edit. Seems experienced enough. --]]  08:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

	== January 2016 ==

	] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. 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 article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

	'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->
	--]]  13:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

	== ArbCom Sanctions ==

	{{Ivm\|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

	'''Please carefully read this information:'''

	The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding ], ], and ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].

	Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. 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.
	}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->
	--]]  13:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

	==Talkback==
	{{talkback\|Talk:Partition of India\|ts=13:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)}}
	]]  13:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

	== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
	]
	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 15:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

	== February 2016 ==
	] ]. We welcome and appreciate ], including your edits to ], but we cannot accept ]. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses ]. Please be prepared to cite a ] for all of your contributions. ''While you have provided an excellent source, your content is quite different from what is found in the source. Please be more careful in future.''<!-- Template:uw-nor1 --> ] (]) 02:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

	: Please read ] for how to use newspapers as sources. In general, newspaper opinion columns are not reliable sources, unless the author is a well-known scholar. For historical matters, ] should be used, especially on a contentious topic like the ]. You have been already informed about ARBIPA sanctions. Please follow the Misplaced Pages policies as required. - ] (]) 11:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

	== 3RR Warning ==		== 3RR Warning ==

Line 88:		Line 14:
	The information I added was correctly sourced. Some parts of the previous revisions are completely unsourced. However it seems like you may have vested interests in presenting a one-sided perspective of the conflict with no consideration at all for the viewpoints and sources of the other side. In this case you are violating all of Misplaced Pages's neutrality policies.		The information I added was correctly sourced. Some parts of the previous revisions are completely unsourced. However it seems like you may have vested interests in presenting a one-sided perspective of the conflict with no consideration at all for the viewpoints and sources of the other side. In this case you are violating all of Misplaced Pages's neutrality policies.

			== 3rr ==
	== You've been warned about edit warring ==

			== Warning ==
	As an admin I notice you making large reverts at several articles, including ]. These articles are on my watch list due to past disputes, which were often intense. The pattern of your edits suggests you are engaged in disruption. Your talk page shows warnings about edit warring as long ago as January, and you've already been notified of ]. Please be aware that the next time you make a revert on one of these disputed articles, without first getting consensus on the article talk page, I may block your account with no further discussion. If you find yourself in a disagreement, the steps of ] are open to you. Thank you, ] (]) 03:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

			] You currently appear to be engaged in an ] according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
	==Your recent edits==
			Please be particularly aware that ] states:
	] Hello and ]. When you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to ]. There are two ways to do this. Either:
			# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''.
	# Add four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
			# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
	# With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (] or ]) located above the edit window.
			If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew -->
	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.

			I do not think it is an edit war at all. A lot of the information is extremely one sided. Either it needs to be reformed or a complete separate section will need to be added to explain the other viewpoint. Thank you.
	Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 08:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

			@Son of ATM
	== Layout/Styling ==

			The information I added was correctly sourced. BUt you have started vandalizing wikipedia by removing that sourced material. However it seems like you may have vested interests in presenting a one-sided perspective of the conflict with no consideration at all for the viewpoints and sources of the other side. In this case you are violating all of Misplaced Pages's neutrality policies.
	Hey, just wanted to let you know that you need to sign your comments, always. To do that, you just have to put four ]s ( ~~~~ )at the end of your comments. Please do that. Moreover, please make you of colons (:) to indent your replies. You can put number of colons (:) to indent your replies. e.g if you would want to reply to my comment, you would put a single (:) without brackets ofcourse, before you start writing your reply. This will add space to the left side of your opening paragraph and would make it easy for readers to understand from where your comments are beginning. Thanks—] <sup>] </sup> 07:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

	== ~~March~~ ~~2016~~ ==		== Re: Your email ==
	] Hello, I'm ]. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a ]. Your recent edit to ] seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-npov1 --> ] (]) 07:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

			Hello there, I looked at the link that you sent me (]) and I see nothing there that would constitute harassment. Everything on that page is simply copied from the edit histories of various articles, along with the WHOIS info for the IP addresses -- all of that is public information. ]<sup>'']</sup> 09:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
	== Your recent edits ==
			:Regarding your reply via email: I'm not sure what it is that you want me to do. You may not have knowingly revealed that information, but by editing when not logged in, you reveal your IP address. Geographic locations associated with IP addresses are public information. Please see ] for more about that. ]<sup>'']</sup> 09:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
			::Per your last email, you want your IP edits to be oversighted. I do not have oversight privileges, so you would be better served at ]. Additionally, I will not be blocking the user you are accusing of harassment. As I said earlier, I do not see any evidence of harassment. Best of luck, ]<sup>'']</sup> 09:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

			== July 2017 ==
	] Hello and ]. When you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to ]. There are two ways to do this. Either:
			<div class="user-block" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px">
	# Add four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
			] '''Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an ] has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.'''
	# With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (] or ]) located above the edit window.
			<span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:88%;">( • • • • ]<span class="sysop-show"> • ]</span> • • }}<span class="sysop-show"> • ] • </span> • ], unblock request}}}} checkuser] ()) </span>
	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.
			{{clear}}
			----
			If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the ], then contact administrators by submitting a request to the '']''. If the block is a ] or ] block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the ].<br><small>Please note that there could be appeals to the ] that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.</small><p> '''] ]''' 14:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:Blocked talk-revoked-notice -->
			{{UTRS-unblock-user\|22166\|Jul 24, 2018 15:30:48\|closed}}--] (]) 15:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

			==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
	Thank you. ] (]) 13:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> ] (]) 01:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

	== ~~March 2016~~ ==		== Faizan ==

	] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. 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 article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

	'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. ] (]) 09:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

	@MBlaze Lightning

	Just received your message so undone the edit.

	But you are not even discussing on Talk page nor going through the sources.

	::{{ping\|TalhaZubairButt}} You need to gain ] amongst editors, if there is a dispute and not blatantly undo the users who reverts you. You have already violated ], so keep in mind, the next time you see yourself being reverted by other editors, discuss the issue at talk page and, not ]. It's OK i have seen your message at ], i'll try replying to it in evening (as i have some urgent work to do), till then, do not make any '''Further changes/or revert'''. Thank You! ] (]) 10:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
	== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
	]
	This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
	Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] \| ] \| 14:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

	==Your recent edits==
	] Hello and ]. When you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to ]. There are two ways to do this. Either:
	# Add four ]s ( ~~~~ ) 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.<!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 23:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
	==]==
	Hi, please familiarise yourself with ]. I feel like you might have been a victim of wikihounding as I see a certain editor might have been following your edits. If that is the case, you might want to remedy this situation as I feel that nobody should be made to endure such behavior. ] \| ] \| 11:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

	@SheriffIsInTown

	Could you please explain in a summary how I should go through this process?] (]) 01:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

	== March 2016 ==

	] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. 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 article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

	'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. ] (]) 12:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

	== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
	]
	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 05:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

	==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction==
	{{Ivmbox
	\|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg
	\|imagesize=50px
	\|1=The following sanction now applies to you:

	{{Talkquote\|1=] within ] for a period of 1 month, subject to ].}}

	You have been sanctioned due to repeated edit warring

	This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the procedure described at ]. This sanction has been recorded in the ]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] 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 ]. I recommend that you use the ] 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.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> ]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 02:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
	}}
	==Multiple barnstars for you==
	{\| style="border:1px solid gray; background-color:#fdffe7; width:100%;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" \|
	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7;"
	\|rowspan="1" style="vertical-align:middle;" \|{{#if:File:BoNM - Pakistan Hires.png\|]}}
	\|rowspan="1" style="vertical-align:middle;" \|{{#if:File:New editor delivery.png\|]}}
	\|}
	\|rowspan="2"\|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''The Multiple Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;"\|You have earned them by your excellent work on ] articles, keep up the good work. Do not get deterred from doing the right thing, the right way! There are editors looking to block you from improving the encyclopedia, keep an eye out for them! Thanks! ] \| ] \| 15:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
	\|}

	@SheriffIsInTown
	Thanks (bhai). I really appreciate it. I think you should also take a more proactive role yourself in making this encyclopaedia a neutral place of balanced information.] (]) 08:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

	== Reference errors on 30 March ==

	] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1\|1\|It is\|They are}} as follows:
	*On the ] page, caused a ] <small>(])</small>. ( \| )
	Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
	Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

	== Talk page etiquette ==

	Hi Talha Zubair, Glad to see that you came back. I thought you might get disheartened after that massive revert.

	Can you please follow the guidelines of talk pages as described at ]? Cheers, ] (]) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

	: Also, please keep your posts short and to-the-point. When many issues need to be discussed, put them in bullet points or subsections. Multiple paragraphs in a single post are normally to be avoided. Cheers, ] (]) 22:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

	:: It wasn't very clever to revert RegentsPark, who is a highly respected admin. Please remember that you are already under an ARBIPA sanction. The next sanction will be much more severe. You should engage on the talk page, as you are doing, but wait for consensus to develop. -- ] (]) 23:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

	== edit warring ==

	Uhhh... aren't you under a 1RR restriction on anything related to India and Pakistan, which would include ] article? Here's your chance to self revert.] (]) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

	@Volunteer Marek: I haven't reverted anything. I have only restored Bina D'Costa's work, Rudolf Russel's work, Anthony Mascarenhas quote has been provided and referenced to an academic journal and subsequent sourced info on Pakistan's Islamisation has been re-added. The rest of your revert is left as it is.

	Also it is very telling that you chose this moment to cut out the information we had agreed upon earlier (the Bina D'Costa reference in the article's intro).] (]) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

	::Yes, and that's a revert. And you've done it several times. I think you've broken 3RR, nevermind 1RR. Like I said, you really should self-revert.] (]) 23:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

	@Volunteer Marek: That is not a revert. That is a new edit. I have in my new edit re-added the info we had agreed upon earlier, readded Rudolf Russel's statistics and changed the reference from Sarmila Bose to Anthony Mascarenhas.

	And you still have not explained why you cut out the info we had agreed upon previously (from Bna D'Costa). I will answer that for you. You are using this opportunity to censor sourced facts which are not of your liking.] (]) 23:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
	:Doesn't matter. You're under 1RR and you reverted 3 times.] (]) 00:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

	@Volunteer Marek: In other words you admit to being an opportunist. Hence it doesn't matter to you that you are using this opportunity to cut out information we had agreed upon earlier (Bina D'Costa reference).

	Secondly, what I have done is not classified as a revert. Its called a new edit.

	Revert is when you restore previous version which I have not done. I have merely edited some of the info from the previous versions and re-added previously agreed upon information.

	== 3rr ==

	== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
	]
	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 00:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

	== April 2016 ==
	<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''60 hours''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx\|" code. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ].  ] (]) 00:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->

	I think you should also take a look into how Volunteer Marek is taking liberty of my blockage to cut out whole sourced sections of information (he has already cut out the 'Violence against Biharis' section from the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide page as well as the 'Violence against Bengali supporters of Pakistan' section even though the former section existed on the article even before my presence on Misplaced Pages). The reason being simply that he wants to censor sourced facts which are not of his liking. And my 60 hour ban is like a golden handshake for him. ] (]) 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	*Well, if you hadn't gotten yourself blocked, you could have done something about it. As for his "censoring sourced facts", I could consider that comment a personal attack. ] (]) 01:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	*{{re\|TalhaZubairButt}} Dude, it's just 60 hours, chill out and accept the block, refrain from personal attacks. You should have been careful, you were under 1RR and I did tell you that people are looking to get you blocked but it's still not a big deal, wait your block out and don't make any mistakes of doing IP edits or creating other user accounts. ] \| ] \| 02:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

	@SheriffIsInTown: Please do tell me, what is the difference between a revert and edit? Because I have made multiple edits on other (related) pages within 24 hours and they were not called reverts. And in this case, for which Volunteer Marek reported me, I did not revert, rather I made new edits which restored only some of the removed sourced information. And I am not making a personal attack, you should go and check out the conversation above. I also request you to leave a brief summary here on how to pursue the Wikihounding (is that what its called) process so that upon being unblocked I can go through the civilized procedure of dealing with wiki-hounding people.Thank you.] (]) 04:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

	@SheriffIsInTown
	I also have to confess I feel disappointed in you because of your thinking I would made IP edits or other accounts (subsequently telling me not to do so as if I need instruction in this manner). That indicates a lack of trust. I felt trusted but now feel disappointed. ] (]) 05:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	:Dude, you are just angry. Just chill it out. I know how you feel. Just to give you an idea, a revert means re-adding the same content so if you did that twice (like first using the undo button to undo your original edit and then re-added the 'same' content manually once it was removed by another user, you'll end up with 2 x reverts). I am not sure about your edits being referred by VM, if you can give me the diffs, I may explain it to you better. Thanks—] <sup>] </sup> 10:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	:{{re\|TalhaZubairButt}} That was a good faith brotherly advice. As I thought you being a relatively new user might make a mistake of doing either of those things and earn a longer block instead. Many new users do that when they get blocked and then they earn a longer block, ] did that and look what happened to him, he got blocked indefinitely, also Drmies is an admin if he is telling you to refrain from attack and instead you continue to do so then it can earn you a longer block as well and I did not want Misplaced Pages to lose such a good editor like yourself. You already fell into a trap and I did not want that to happen again. Please see ] about what I was talking about when I say people are looking to block you. ] \| ] \| 10:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	*"new edits which restored only some of the removed sourced information"...yeah, that's a revert. ] (]) 16:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

	] You currently appear to be engaged in an ] according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
	Please be particularly aware that ] states:
	# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''.
	# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
	If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''{{Break}}''Let me remind you that you are under 1RR. If I see you continue to edit-war, I will ask for it to be tightened to 0RR.''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 12:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

			I realise that my past behaviour was not the best. I am not exactly proud of that. But I do have thousands of bytes worth of verifiable content to my name. The quality of my contributions were good. I realise that my behaviour of edit warring and socking was bad. I want to make a fresh start with my good side only this time. I understand some people doubt my application because of the Faizan incident. Faizan is now deceased and I don't want to dwell on his story too much out of respect for the deceased but his hacking claim was not the truth. I had been recruited (and rejected) at various times by Faizan, Kautilya3 and others for meat puppetry and in Faizan's case he told me to make edits from his own account. I can share these users' emails to me with admins in private if they wish to verify what I am saying. I will share this non-public information of other users only privately. Those days of allowing myself to be used as others' meat and using socks myself and edit warring were not exactly my best days. I am not proud of it. But I don't think this should be held against me forever. I do believe I should be given another chance.
	@Kautilya3: We are currently discussing on Talk.] (]) 13:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
			: Pinging past blocking admins {{ping\|Just Chilling\|Vanjagenije\|Bbb23}} ] ] 16:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

			== Standard offer appeal declined ==
	== 1RR Vio. ==

			Posting here to let you know that I have closed your ] appeal discussion as declined by the community, and so you will not be unblocked at this time. A permanent link to the discussion is available . Thank you. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
	You know, you have violated 1RR again (, ) How about a self-revert? ] -] 10:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:36, 10 March 2022

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Towns_Hill/Archives/Archive_1

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bangladesh Liberation War. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I do not think it is an edit war at all. A lot of the information is extremely one sided. Either it needs to be reformed or a complete separate section will need to be added to explain the other viewpoint. Thank you.

@Volunteer Marek

The information I added was correctly sourced. Some parts of the previous revisions are completely unsourced. However it seems like you may have vested interests in presenting a one-sided perspective of the conflict with no consideration at all for the viewpoints and sources of the other side. In this case you are violating all of Misplaced Pages's neutrality policies.

3rr

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Pakistani Shia Muslims. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

@Son of ATM

The information I added was correctly sourced. BUt you have started vandalizing wikipedia by removing that sourced material. However it seems like you may have vested interests in presenting a one-sided perspective of the conflict with no consideration at all for the viewpoints and sources of the other side. In this case you are violating all of Misplaced Pages's neutrality policies.

Re: Your email

Hello there, I looked at the link that you sent me (User:Kautilya3/serial/Faiz) and I see nothing there that would constitute harassment. Everything on that page is simply copied from the edit histories of various articles, along with the WHOIS info for the IP addresses -- all of that is public information. A Train 09:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your reply via email: I'm not sure what it is that you want me to do. You may not have knowingly revealed that information, but by editing when not logged in, you reveal your IP address. Geographic locations associated with IP addresses are public information. Please see WP:IP for more about that. A Train 09:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Per your last email, you want your IP edits to be oversighted. I do not have oversight privileges, so you would be better served at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Additionally, I will not be blocking the user you are accusing of harassment. As I said earlier, I do not see any evidence of harassment. Best of luck, A Train 09:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Towns Hill (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22166 was submitted on Jul 24, 2018 15:30:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard Offer appeal by User:Towns Hill regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just Chilling (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Faizan

I realise that my past behaviour was not the best. I am not exactly proud of that. But I do have thousands of bytes worth of verifiable content to my name. The quality of my contributions were good. I realise that my behaviour of edit warring and socking was bad. I want to make a fresh start with my good side only this time. I understand some people doubt my application because of the Faizan incident. Faizan is now deceased and I don't want to dwell on his story too much out of respect for the deceased but his hacking claim was not the truth. I had been recruited (and rejected) at various times by Faizan, Kautilya3 and others for meat puppetry and in Faizan's case he told me to make edits from his own account. I can share these users' emails to me with admins in private if they wish to verify what I am saying. I will share this non-public information of other users only privately. Those days of allowing myself to be used as others' meat and using socks myself and edit warring were not exactly my best days. I am not proud of it. But I don't think this should be held against me forever. I do believe I should be given another chance.

Pinging past blocking admins @Just Chilling, Vanjagenije, and Bbb23: EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Standard offer appeal declined

Posting here to let you know that I have closed your standard offer appeal discussion as declined by the community, and so you will not be unblocked at this time. A permanent link to the discussion is available here. Thank you. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)