Hello, Jab1998, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Cerebellum ( talk) 02:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in
Battle of Mogadishu (1993). There is a
Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you.
Loafiewa (
talk) 06:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at
Battle of Mogadishu (1993), you may be
blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia
Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason.
Loafiewa (
talk) 14:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the
Manual of Style, as you did at
Battle of Mogadishu (1993).
Loafiewa (
talk) 14:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk) 18:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Judging by your contributions, you clearly have a hypernationalistic, inaccurate viewpoint on certain conflicts. Please disclose your bias. It it better to get consensus on outcomes than just to use Call of Duty ratios.
Also for reference, the 2011 NATO-Pakistan conflict has an unknown number of casualties for NATO, not "zero casualties". Please read the article first.
FIREYSUNSET ( talk) 00:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
FIREYSUNSET ( talk) 20:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to point out your consistent changing of the status of the "Pakistan-United States Skirmishes" article. Neutral assessments align with the belief that the Pakistani Government was the victor longterm with the United States forced evacuation of Shamsi Airfield fulfilling this narrative. The United States had to PUBLICLY apologize on the matter for their supply routes to be secured and acknowledge Pakistani sovereignty. That is a clear moral and political victory for Pakistan. Hence, I shall change the status. "Skirmishes Ended; Pakistani Political Victory". Thank you. Izaan Iqbal ( talk) 14:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
First Barbary War, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 23:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Barbary Wars. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. M.Bitton ( talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jab1998 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you.
M.Bitton (
talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Jab1998 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
What you are saying is that you think your edits were correct, but that is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that their edits are correct. For the block to be removed early, you will need to describe how to resolve editing conflicts without edit warring. 331dot ( talk) 16:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The Barbary wars wiki page has read “US victory” for years. Someone edited it to read “inconclusive” and then I changed it back to US victory. Afterwards, other editors kept deleting the results page and I kept editing it back to US victory. I teach history and have a masters in the subject. The US-Barbary conflict ended with the second Barbary war in 1815 as a US victory. Don’t we have an obligation to undo sabotage. I understand we are supposed to debate opposing views but if the other “view” is just plain wrong and contradictory to historical facts then why should that “view” carry any weight? If someone edited WW2 to delete “Allied Victory” from the results, do I really have to debate the person when it’s a fact that the Allies won? Deleting facts, especially facts which have been on the page for multiple years is sabotaging the wiki page. I was protecting the page from sabotage. Not sure how to do it but I’d like to request the Barbary wars page to be protected and for the result to read US victory
Jab1998 ( talk) 15:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Jab1998 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I engaged in the talk section of the article and wanted to protect the integrity of the article Jab1998 ( talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were doing the right thing by attempting to reach consensus on the article talk page. You were doing the wrong thing (by Wikipedia standards) by edit warring on the article page to keep your favored version in place. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I don’t know why my previous unblock request was labeled a “personal attack”. I understand everyone engaged in edit warring believes themselves to be right. However some things are not up for debate. Sometimes, people are just wrong. Please read the talk section comments over the past 48 hours on the Barbary wars page. I did try to educate other editors on the historical facts. Please research the Barbary wars. You’ll see that I’m right regarding my desire to bring back the “US victory” result which had stood on the page for multiple years. In history either something happened or it didn’t. Just like the WW2 analogy I made in the previous attempt, if someone is just historically wrong and if they refuse to acknowledge that their facts don’t line up with history after talking to them in the talk page, don’t we then have an obligation to edit the page regardless to show the facts? Jab1998 ( talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
{unblock|reason= how is this edit warring Jab1998 ( talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)}}
So if a user removes a historical fact which has been in the article for years, and if you try to educate the user in the talk section but they refuse to acknowledge historical facts, we can’t just simply override them? We have to allow fallacy to impact Wikipedia? We have to obtain a mutual consensus even if the other side is just plain wrong and refuses to acknowledge widely accepted historical facts? So if someone writes that Hitler survived WW2 and refuses to acknowledge his dead in the talk section, do we have to let that stand? I make that comparison because writing that Hitler lived is just as factually wrong as removing “US victory” from the Barbary Wars article Jab1998 ( talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 14:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Jab1998 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have never engaged in sock puppeting Jab1998 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I am very surprised to see I have been blocked for sockpuppeting. Jab1998 is my only wiki account. I have only ever been active with jab1998 and even then I barely use the account. I have never communicated or conspired with anyone to make edits on my behalf. Jab1998 ( talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Jab1998, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Cerebellum ( talk) 02:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in
Battle of Mogadishu (1993). There is a
Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you.
Loafiewa (
talk) 06:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at
Battle of Mogadishu (1993), you may be
blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia
Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason.
Loafiewa (
talk) 14:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the
Manual of Style, as you did at
Battle of Mogadishu (1993).
Loafiewa (
talk) 14:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk) 18:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Judging by your contributions, you clearly have a hypernationalistic, inaccurate viewpoint on certain conflicts. Please disclose your bias. It it better to get consensus on outcomes than just to use Call of Duty ratios.
Also for reference, the 2011 NATO-Pakistan conflict has an unknown number of casualties for NATO, not "zero casualties". Please read the article first.
FIREYSUNSET ( talk) 00:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
FIREYSUNSET ( talk) 20:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to point out your consistent changing of the status of the "Pakistan-United States Skirmishes" article. Neutral assessments align with the belief that the Pakistani Government was the victor longterm with the United States forced evacuation of Shamsi Airfield fulfilling this narrative. The United States had to PUBLICLY apologize on the matter for their supply routes to be secured and acknowledge Pakistani sovereignty. That is a clear moral and political victory for Pakistan. Hence, I shall change the status. "Skirmishes Ended; Pakistani Political Victory". Thank you. Izaan Iqbal ( talk) 14:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
First Barbary War, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 23:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Barbary Wars. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. M.Bitton ( talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jab1998 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you.
M.Bitton (
talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Jab1998 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
What you are saying is that you think your edits were correct, but that is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that their edits are correct. For the block to be removed early, you will need to describe how to resolve editing conflicts without edit warring. 331dot ( talk) 16:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The Barbary wars wiki page has read “US victory” for years. Someone edited it to read “inconclusive” and then I changed it back to US victory. Afterwards, other editors kept deleting the results page and I kept editing it back to US victory. I teach history and have a masters in the subject. The US-Barbary conflict ended with the second Barbary war in 1815 as a US victory. Don’t we have an obligation to undo sabotage. I understand we are supposed to debate opposing views but if the other “view” is just plain wrong and contradictory to historical facts then why should that “view” carry any weight? If someone edited WW2 to delete “Allied Victory” from the results, do I really have to debate the person when it’s a fact that the Allies won? Deleting facts, especially facts which have been on the page for multiple years is sabotaging the wiki page. I was protecting the page from sabotage. Not sure how to do it but I’d like to request the Barbary wars page to be protected and for the result to read US victory
Jab1998 ( talk) 15:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Jab1998 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I engaged in the talk section of the article and wanted to protect the integrity of the article Jab1998 ( talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were doing the right thing by attempting to reach consensus on the article talk page. You were doing the wrong thing (by Wikipedia standards) by edit warring on the article page to keep your favored version in place. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I don’t know why my previous unblock request was labeled a “personal attack”. I understand everyone engaged in edit warring believes themselves to be right. However some things are not up for debate. Sometimes, people are just wrong. Please read the talk section comments over the past 48 hours on the Barbary wars page. I did try to educate other editors on the historical facts. Please research the Barbary wars. You’ll see that I’m right regarding my desire to bring back the “US victory” result which had stood on the page for multiple years. In history either something happened or it didn’t. Just like the WW2 analogy I made in the previous attempt, if someone is just historically wrong and if they refuse to acknowledge that their facts don’t line up with history after talking to them in the talk page, don’t we then have an obligation to edit the page regardless to show the facts? Jab1998 ( talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
{unblock|reason= how is this edit warring Jab1998 ( talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)}}
So if a user removes a historical fact which has been in the article for years, and if you try to educate the user in the talk section but they refuse to acknowledge historical facts, we can’t just simply override them? We have to allow fallacy to impact Wikipedia? We have to obtain a mutual consensus even if the other side is just plain wrong and refuses to acknowledge widely accepted historical facts? So if someone writes that Hitler survived WW2 and refuses to acknowledge his dead in the talk section, do we have to let that stand? I make that comparison because writing that Hitler lived is just as factually wrong as removing “US victory” from the Barbary Wars article Jab1998 ( talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 14:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Jab1998 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have never engaged in sock puppeting Jab1998 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I am very surprised to see I have been blocked for sockpuppeting. Jab1998 is my only wiki account. I have only ever been active with jab1998 and even then I barely use the account. I have never communicated or conspired with anyone to make edits on my behalf. Jab1998 ( talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)