if you delete referenced material, i shall persist to revert the uncontested truth till you can justify your actions...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityvalyu ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 April 2008
Hi. Please try to desist from posting phony warnings at other people's talk pages. I have (to my knowledge) not violated 3RR, I have not 'experimented', the moves of the Azad Kashmir were by no means 'test moves' and someone stating 'i shall persist to revert the uncontested truth' cannot really lecture others on not doing reverts. -- Soman ( talk) 12:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
this guy is a joke keep on editing freind and ill keep on reverting you have no bases for your claims or should i say rants about maps the map of jammu and kashmir only shows india without any labels of neighbours you indians dont control wikipedia so get a grip and stop your vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.237.192 ( talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- the above user is known for abuse..this is the only talk page entry in his/her talk page:
-
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Azad Kashmir. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Shovon (
talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC) -
Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to
Northern Areas (Pakistan). If your
vandalism continues, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Shovon (
talk) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC) - ..so wiki users can judge further.. 117.193.34.132 ( talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have removed the redirect to Azad Kashmir. If you disagree with the contents of that article you should not be creating POV forks on the topic. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. Pahari Sahib 01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- his contention disproved and the article was retained after an afd disdcussion..present title of
pok article is pakistan administered kashmir..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi just thought I'd point out the article wasn't retained it was redirected back to the way it was. For two years it had been this way until some alterations were made in the last couple of months. Pahari Sahib 10:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- his contention disproved and the article was retained after an afd disdcussion..present title of
pok article is pakistan administered kashmir..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The India Star | |
| for your contribution in preventing vandalism in POKarticle and for contributing neutral views to discussions on india relevant articles like Amarnath land transfer controversy Kashmircloud ( talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC) |
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-- Kober Talk 09:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Please don't use the excuse that you're removing "original research" whenever you change something you don't like in an article. I've noticed you doing this a couple times, as when you removed the "outcry in the West" statement from International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia ostensibly for that reason. The second reason you gave in that case, that the statement was unbalanced without what used to follow, was reasonable. (In fact, I had just made the same edit, only to find that you beat me to it, and I agree with you completely.) However, by misrepresenting it as OR when it clearly is not (the outcry in the West is blatantly obvious), you run the risk of people thinking you're unreliable or perhaps even dishonest when you edit, and may make editing more difficult for all of us. kwami ( talk) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Colors aside, I suggest to take a look at Wikipedia:OR for how the term is used here on Wikipedia. kwami ( talk) 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering that you're edit warring on this article, and have already racked up 3RR just on this one point, it's rather hypocritical of you to warn me about 3RR. kwami ( talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I find it rather amusing how I'm either "pro-Russian" or "anti-Russian" depending on the biases of other editors. kwami ( talk) 08:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You're also abusing the term "consensus" the way you abuse "original research". You ask me to assume good faith, and at first I did—but now I'm starting to doubt that it's the case. Good-faith editors don't need to misrepresent their edits or their reasons. kwami ( talk) 08:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
you had asked me to respond to something some time ago. i forget which article it was for. What did you want me to respond to? Lihaas ( talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits on Abkhazia constitute edit warring, you've violated WP:3RR yourself while reporting other users for the same. Unless you modify your approach and try to work with the other editors of that page, you'll be blocked the next time you engage in similar behavior. henrik• talk 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- show me the proof mr. liar nato stooge..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 06:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are certain skills which are good to have when editing contentious wikipedia articles. Among those is an understanding that calling your fellow editors names is usually not helpful. Unfortunately not everybody has the right temperament to work in contentious areas, and will sooner or later either change their ways or be ejected from the wikipedia community. I can concede that there are in many cases a western bias to wikipedia (Our coverage of Africa is very poor for example), but if you wish to change that on
Abkhazia you'll first need to understand how to be productive in a heated environment and learn how to contribute light rather than heat to the discussion. The proof is in the history of
Abkhazia, but certain problematic diffs are as follows:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] where you inserted material, then partially reverted their removal in several different edits.
henrik•
talk 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- comical to conclude that three non identical edits is violating wiki when user:kober, a georgian (nato prodigy) made 4 edits within 24 hours and not a single user including
Gb had the spine to disprove the proof on display..nor could anyone gather their conscience to act just !!
Gb seems to lack the abilities to condemn kober's violation of 3rr while selectively targetting me although no one reported me and i too have not ignored any intimation to me on that article (unlike him--USERS CAN JUDGE
Gb'S DOUBLE STANDARDS AND LACK OF INTEGRITY IN APPLYING HIS POWERS UNIFORMLY!!!
- Further to the above, and your antagonistic comments at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, including questioning my integrity, please consider this your last chance. Calling people "Mr. Liar Nato Stooge" is a breach of our policies on
personal attacks. I suggest you tone down your approach, considerably, if you wish to continue editing here.
Gb
T/
c 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- does wiki policy favour letting unrepentant contemptuous violators to go scot free?? does wiki policy favour administrator supporting brazen 3rr violators?? does it favour eloquent administrators turning a blind eye "selectively" (motives??integrity??) to violators like kober??..you have shameful double standards and lack integrity to say the least(you didnt even write a single letter to condemn kober's brazen behaviour!!!)..hence, i shall ignore you henceforth as your character deserves that (still i have no hatred for the life within your body..as per gandhian strictness)..thats the best punishment that "dharma" should give to "adharma"..you can do what you want by abusing your powers or acting selectively blind..i care least...i dare you to act further..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Warning:Your behaviour is increasingly bordering on the blockable, including the personal attacks too numerous to mention in
this little gem. I suggest that you considerably improve your approach, failing which you will inevitably be blocked for persistently failing to maintain a proper standard of decorum when dealing with other editors. Incidentally, talk pages are for communicating with other users, not for keeping deleted versions of articles.
Gb
T/
c 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- the following edit still is relevant :does wiki policy favour letting unrepentant contemptuous violators to go scot free?? does wiki policy favour administrator supporting brazen 3rr violators?? does it favour eloquent administrators turning a blind eye "selectively" (motives??integrity??) to violators like kober??..you have shameful double standards and lack integrity to say the least(you didnt even write a single letter to condemn kober's brazen behaviour!!!)..hence, i shall ignore you henceforth as your character deserves that (still i have no hatred for the life within your body..as per gandhian strictness)..thats the best punishment that "dharma" should give to "adharma"..you can do what you want by abusing your powers or acting selectively blind..i care least...i dare you to act further.. Cityvalyu ( talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC) ..no more replies needed to Gb Cityvalyu ( talk) 17:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Warning:Your behaviour is increasingly bordering on the blockable, including the personal attacks too numerous to mention in
this little gem. I suggest that you considerably improve your approach, failing which you will inevitably be blocked for persistently failing to maintain a proper standard of decorum when dealing with other editors. Incidentally, talk pages are for communicating with other users, not for keeping deleted versions of articles.
Gb
T/
c 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- does wiki policy favour letting unrepentant contemptuous violators to go scot free?? does wiki policy favour administrator supporting brazen 3rr violators?? does it favour eloquent administrators turning a blind eye "selectively" (motives??integrity??) to violators like kober??..you have shameful double standards and lack integrity to say the least(you didnt even write a single letter to condemn kober's brazen behaviour!!!)..hence, i shall ignore you henceforth as your character deserves that (still i have no hatred for the life within your body..as per gandhian strictness)..thats the best punishment that "dharma" should give to "adharma"..you can do what you want by abusing your powers or acting selectively blind..i care least...i dare you to act further..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Further to the above, and your antagonistic comments at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, including questioning my integrity, please consider this your last chance. Calling people "Mr. Liar Nato Stooge" is a breach of our policies on
personal attacks. I suggest you tone down your approach, considerably, if you wish to continue editing here.
Gb
T/
c 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- comical to conclude that three non identical edits is violating wiki when user:kober, a georgian (nato prodigy) made 4 edits within 24 hours and not a single user including
Gb had the spine to disprove the proof on display..nor could anyone gather their conscience to act just !!
Gb seems to lack the abilities to condemn kober's violation of 3rr while selectively targetting me although no one reported me and i too have not ignored any intimation to me on that article (unlike him--USERS CAN JUDGE
Gb'S DOUBLE STANDARDS AND LACK OF INTEGRITY IN APPLYING HIS POWERS UNIFORMLY!!!
- There are certain skills which are good to have when editing contentious wikipedia articles. Among those is an understanding that calling your fellow editors names is usually not helpful. Unfortunately not everybody has the right temperament to work in contentious areas, and will sooner or later either change their ways or be ejected from the wikipedia community. I can concede that there are in many cases a western bias to wikipedia (Our coverage of Africa is very poor for example), but if you wish to change that on
Abkhazia you'll first need to understand how to be productive in a heated environment and learn how to contribute light rather than heat to the discussion. The proof is in the history of
Abkhazia, but certain problematic diffs are as follows:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] where you inserted material, then partially reverted their removal in several different edits.
henrik•
talk 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
format , racist favours discussion
Your 3RR report was not in the usual format, Cityvalu. I often help people format 3RR reports. If you would like help formatting a report, feel free to ask me, and if I'm not too busy and if I think a report is warranted I'll likely help you. For a good example of a well-formatted report, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:82.20.235.102 reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours). For how to make diff links, see Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide. By the way, re your comment on 4 September the best way to AGF and not call someone racist is to say nothing about it. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- ok, i shall try a better report next time..racism is everywhere(overt or subtle)..racist "discrimination" is obvously bad(you would agree with me, i guess)..but the sort of racist "favour" (that pro-western whites get) goes unnoticed..if i had done the same thing as
user:kober, i would have been blocked for minimal 24 hours-that is wikipedia's policy(this time i didnt mention racist policy;) lol since wiki can't be blamed for the many of the administrator's indulgence !!!!
Cityvalyu (
talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what race you are, and it seems a likely possibility to me that Stifle neither knows nor cares what race you are. Sometimes people are blocked for editwarring even if they didn't violate 3RR, and sometimes people are not blocked even though they did violate 3RR. Administrators take a number of things into account in making those decisions: one of them is civility. For example whether the person has been saying things like "i didnt mention racist policy". ☺
Coppertwig (
talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Edit wars despite repeated warning earns you a week without editing privileges. Sorry.
DS (
talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- i think it is related to the reversions of the ip edits who had earlier stalked me..you sympathised with me when i was in trouble..i am standing by you now, irrespective of what others think, friend..
Kashmircloud (
talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- KC, thanks for your support..regarding DS, i dont know what edit war you are talking about..!! .if it is about
abhkhazia, then you are wrong since my edit was accepted and so too was my reasoning..if it is about reverting a vandal
user:nangparbat's edits, then you must look at hersfold's vandal watch page to understand..if it is about gb's selective appliication of standards, then i will have to think about racism again..i also noticed that you belong to canada ..that show a 80 to 90 % chance that you are do not belong to the category of victims of racism (rather you could be on the other side..but i dont know..you can tell that better)..so, even if the block is for "edit war", it seems to be retrospective decision almost 4 days after all edits were over(your motives:again dubious!!) and after i refused to take the bait from a particular racist mentality guy..so, your abusive decision is dubious (may be you were contacted outside wiki to do this block), smacks of racism and shame on racist people..just compare this decision with the leniency on a georgian named kober ..thinking of quitting wiki infested with racist guys like you with spineless immoral application of standards..i am sorry if speaking the truth hurts your image, but cant help it..but speaking with a heavy heart nevertheless(on discovering racial discrimination originating from western world (canada))..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 17:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cityvalyu, please comment on content, not on the contributors. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- KC, thanks for your support..regarding DS, i dont know what edit war you are talking about..!! .if it is about
abhkhazia, then you are wrong since my edit was accepted and so too was my reasoning..if it is about reverting a vandal
user:nangparbat's edits, then you must look at hersfold's vandal watch page to understand..if it is about gb's selective appliication of standards, then i will have to think about racism again..i also noticed that you belong to canada ..that show a 80 to 90 % chance that you are do not belong to the category of victims of racism (rather you could be on the other side..but i dont know..you can tell that better)..so, even if the block is for "edit war", it seems to be retrospective decision almost 4 days after all edits were over(your motives:again dubious!!) and after i refused to take the bait from a particular racist mentality guy..so, your abusive decision is dubious (may be you were contacted outside wiki to do this block), smacks of racism and shame on racist people..just compare this decision with the leniency on a georgian named kober ..thinking of quitting wiki infested with racist guys like you with spineless immoral application of standards..i am sorry if speaking the truth hurts your image, but cant help it..but speaking with a heavy heart nevertheless(on discovering racial discrimination originating from western world (canada))..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 17:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- i think it is related to the reversions of the ip edits who had earlier stalked me..you sympathised with me when i was in trouble..i am standing by you now, irrespective of what others think, friend..
Kashmircloud (
talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Edit wars despite repeated warning earns you a week without editing privileges. Sorry.
DS (
talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what race you are, and it seems a likely possibility to me that Stifle neither knows nor cares what race you are. Sometimes people are blocked for editwarring even if they didn't violate 3RR, and sometimes people are not blocked even though they did violate 3RR. Administrators take a number of things into account in making those decisions: one of them is civility. For example whether the person has been saying things like "i didnt mention racist policy". ☺
Coppertwig (
talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
this article has been posted for deletion..i have made the following appeal there:
- do not delete : PLEASE allow editing to take place in this article so that it gets balanced; disabling editing and then crying unbalanced is hypocrisy!!!..As we all know we didn't delete european union article just because there was an "england" article or "france" article or "germany" article (which are part of EU nevertheless) ... Similarly we did not destroy soviet union article just because it is divided into 15 parts..Further it is very very clear that POK is not the same as azad k as pok also includes trans karakoram tract, gilgit and baltistan (from 1947 till now)...pok term is used by most if not all non pakistan media.so ip and soman contention invalid.. i think it is not "fork" since contents are not identical, verifiable, has reliable sources and differs from the other articles like " trans-Karakoram tract" or " Northern Areas" (at the maximum, there is a passing reference in the summary(if this is considered fork) style with redirect links to sub regions).So, i am opposing this high handed move based on ignorance..rather i suggest that those who suggest it as non neutral contribute towards making this neutral, if it is not already neutral..pahari sahib's contention of inflammatory not substantiated both in talk page of pok or otherwise..so DO NOT DELETE Kashmircloud ( talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
if you can improve this article or if you believe that the article can be improved by removing the edit ban(say, exampple: semiprotect) and if you also concur that pok not equal to ajk, please help in saving this article from deleters with nationalistic (pakistani)/ religious(islamist?) motives for POK article removal(example: User:paharisahib is pakistani)..please save the POKarticle... Kashmircloud ( talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
He's the banned user Nangparbat ( talk · contribs). The problem is that he has dynamic IPs, making it extremly difficult to enforce a block. Hersfold has been on him for some time, see User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat. -- Soman ( talk) 10:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- i think this
Nangparbat (
talk ·
contribs) guy, is back..see
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&diff=237972231&oldid=237873266..very likely that he is the same guy who hates india..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- And you hate pakistan so whats the difference ?
81.151.101.146 (
talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- i love pakistan but i hate the liars, intolerant fundamentalists, terrorists and vandals(like you,
user:nangparbat) polluting that great nation's image worldwide..that is the difference
Cityvalyu (
talk) 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- So you think im a terrorist seems to me your the Pro indian and anti pakistani alright this wont go down well with administraters freind bye bye now
81.151.101.146 (
talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- i can't help you if you consider yourself a terrorist! further i don't know if you are a terrorist(how can i know that!!!)!! but i KNOW YOU ARE A VANDAL..my reply was in reply to the context of your accusation of "hate"..read above reply properly again...if you read newspapers or visit news pages on net, you will realise what i wrote.. Cityvalyu ( talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- So you think im a terrorist seems to me your the Pro indian and anti pakistani alright this wont go down well with administraters freind bye bye now
81.151.101.146 (
talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- i love pakistan but i hate the liars, intolerant fundamentalists, terrorists and vandals(like you,
user:nangparbat) polluting that great nation's image worldwide..that is the difference
Cityvalyu (
talk) 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- And you hate pakistan so whats the difference ?
81.151.101.146 (
talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, his IP range is widely shared by most of the United Kingdom, and as you've seen he hops around rather a lot. A rangeblock wouldn't do much good and would block many innocent users. I'll block all the recently active IP addresses, but I'm afraid that's all I can do aside from semi-protect your user talk page if you'd like. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- To the IP editor known as Nangparbat: I am leaving this message here as leaving a note on an IP talk page for you would do very little good based on your IP hopping. Cityvalyu is welcome to remove it at any time. You (Nangparbat) are banned from the English Wikipedia for repeated block evasion, persistent and severe personal attacks, and general disruption to the project. All edits that can be attributed to you will be reverted on sight according to the banning policy. Further disruption will lead to an attempt to contact your Internet Service Provider in an effort to curtail your abuse. Stop now. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, I'm getting messages all over just now. I've semi'd your talk page for two weeks - I don't like to protect talk pages for too long since they are here for communication. That should be long enough to get him to get bored and give up on you, I hope. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again, I've posted a notice on ANI about this here: WP:ANI#Nangparbat, round three. You may want to comment. Thanks. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 20:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just providing a tip: If you wish to keep a copy of the deleted article, you can create User:Cityvalyu/Pakistan occupied Kashmir, for instance. __ meco ( talk) 07:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Asking you because I noticed you have edited several Russia/South Ossetia/Georgia related articles. Do you think Mikheil Saakashvili has any qualification for Category:Georgian democracy activists? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I read your comment on User talk:Kober#reported you about the fellow's action. Arey yeh bandheh ka report kaha hai? On both the Abkhazia and South Ossetia pages there is a consistent refusal to discuss his edits. Lihaas ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cityvalyu. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.
Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d
Thanks and best regards,
Mike Lyons
lyonspen |
(talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Cityvalyu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I am asking people related to the
Wiki Project: Jammu and Kashmir or related to Kashmir in anyway for help related to improving the Wikipedia page
Sports in Jammu and Kashmir. The aim is to make it a good article, and also rated as a Good Quality article (
GA) or higher (
FA). Images are also needed as well. LOOKING FORWARD TO A GREAT COLLABORATIVE EFFORT!!! Happy Editing. :)
DiplomatTesterMan (
talk) 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
if you delete referenced material, i shall persist to revert the uncontested truth till you can justify your actions...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityvalyu ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 April 2008
Hi. Please try to desist from posting phony warnings at other people's talk pages. I have (to my knowledge) not violated 3RR, I have not 'experimented', the moves of the Azad Kashmir were by no means 'test moves' and someone stating 'i shall persist to revert the uncontested truth' cannot really lecture others on not doing reverts. -- Soman ( talk) 12:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
this guy is a joke keep on editing freind and ill keep on reverting you have no bases for your claims or should i say rants about maps the map of jammu and kashmir only shows india without any labels of neighbours you indians dont control wikipedia so get a grip and stop your vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.237.192 ( talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- the above user is known for abuse..this is the only talk page entry in his/her talk page:
-
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Azad Kashmir. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Shovon (
talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
-
Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to
Northern Areas (Pakistan). If your
vandalism continues, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Shovon (
talk) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- ..so wiki users can judge further.. 117.193.34.132 ( talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have removed the redirect to Azad Kashmir. If you disagree with the contents of that article you should not be creating POV forks on the topic. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. Pahari Sahib 01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- his contention disproved and the article was retained after an afd disdcussion..present title of
pok article is pakistan administered kashmir..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi just thought I'd point out the article wasn't retained it was redirected back to the way it was. For two years it had been this way until some alterations were made in the last couple of months. Pahari Sahib 10:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- his contention disproved and the article was retained after an afd disdcussion..present title of
pok article is pakistan administered kashmir..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
|
|
The India Star | |
| for your contribution in preventing vandalism in POKarticle and for contributing neutral views to discussions on india relevant articles like Amarnath land transfer controversy Kashmircloud ( talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC) |
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-- Kober Talk 09:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Please don't use the excuse that you're removing "original research" whenever you change something you don't like in an article. I've noticed you doing this a couple times, as when you removed the "outcry in the West" statement from International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia ostensibly for that reason. The second reason you gave in that case, that the statement was unbalanced without what used to follow, was reasonable. (In fact, I had just made the same edit, only to find that you beat me to it, and I agree with you completely.) However, by misrepresenting it as OR when it clearly is not (the outcry in the West is blatantly obvious), you run the risk of people thinking you're unreliable or perhaps even dishonest when you edit, and may make editing more difficult for all of us. kwami ( talk) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Colors aside, I suggest to take a look at Wikipedia:OR for how the term is used here on Wikipedia. kwami ( talk) 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering that you're edit warring on this article, and have already racked up 3RR just on this one point, it's rather hypocritical of you to warn me about 3RR. kwami ( talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I find it rather amusing how I'm either "pro-Russian" or "anti-Russian" depending on the biases of other editors. kwami ( talk) 08:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You're also abusing the term "consensus" the way you abuse "original research". You ask me to assume good faith, and at first I did—but now I'm starting to doubt that it's the case. Good-faith editors don't need to misrepresent their edits or their reasons. kwami ( talk) 08:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
you had asked me to respond to something some time ago. i forget which article it was for. What did you want me to respond to? Lihaas ( talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits on Abkhazia constitute edit warring, you've violated WP:3RR yourself while reporting other users for the same. Unless you modify your approach and try to work with the other editors of that page, you'll be blocked the next time you engage in similar behavior. henrik• talk 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- show me the proof mr. liar nato stooge..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 06:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are certain skills which are good to have when editing contentious wikipedia articles. Among those is an understanding that calling your fellow editors names is usually not helpful. Unfortunately not everybody has the right temperament to work in contentious areas, and will sooner or later either change their ways or be ejected from the wikipedia community. I can concede that there are in many cases a western bias to wikipedia (Our coverage of Africa is very poor for example), but if you wish to change that on
Abkhazia you'll first need to understand how to be productive in a heated environment and learn how to contribute light rather than heat to the discussion. The proof is in the history of
Abkhazia, but certain problematic diffs are as follows:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] where you inserted material, then partially reverted their removal in several different edits.
henrik•
talk 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- comical to conclude that three non identical edits is violating wiki when user:kober, a georgian (nato prodigy) made 4 edits within 24 hours and not a single user including
Gb had the spine to disprove the proof on display..nor could anyone gather their conscience to act just !!
Gb seems to lack the abilities to condemn kober's violation of 3rr while selectively targetting me although no one reported me and i too have not ignored any intimation to me on that article (unlike him--USERS CAN JUDGE
Gb'S DOUBLE STANDARDS AND LACK OF INTEGRITY IN APPLYING HIS POWERS UNIFORMLY!!!
- Further to the above, and your antagonistic comments at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, including questioning my integrity, please consider this your last chance. Calling people "Mr. Liar Nato Stooge" is a breach of our policies on
personal attacks. I suggest you tone down your approach, considerably, if you wish to continue editing here.
Gb
T/
c 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- does wiki policy favour letting unrepentant contemptuous violators to go scot free?? does wiki policy favour administrator supporting brazen 3rr violators?? does it favour eloquent administrators turning a blind eye "selectively" (motives??integrity??) to violators like kober??..you have shameful double standards and lack integrity to say the least(you didnt even write a single letter to condemn kober's brazen behaviour!!!)..hence, i shall ignore you henceforth as your character deserves that (still i have no hatred for the life within your body..as per gandhian strictness)..thats the best punishment that "dharma" should give to "adharma"..you can do what you want by abusing your powers or acting selectively blind..i care least...i dare you to act further..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Warning:Your behaviour is increasingly bordering on the blockable, including the personal attacks too numerous to mention in
this little gem. I suggest that you considerably improve your approach, failing which you will inevitably be blocked for persistently failing to maintain a proper standard of decorum when dealing with other editors. Incidentally, talk pages are for communicating with other users, not for keeping deleted versions of articles.
Gb
T/
c 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- the following edit still is relevant :does wiki policy favour letting unrepentant contemptuous violators to go scot free?? does wiki policy favour administrator supporting brazen 3rr violators?? does it favour eloquent administrators turning a blind eye "selectively" (motives??integrity??) to violators like kober??..you have shameful double standards and lack integrity to say the least(you didnt even write a single letter to condemn kober's brazen behaviour!!!)..hence, i shall ignore you henceforth as your character deserves that (still i have no hatred for the life within your body..as per gandhian strictness)..thats the best punishment that "dharma" should give to "adharma"..you can do what you want by abusing your powers or acting selectively blind..i care least...i dare you to act further.. Cityvalyu ( talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC) ..no more replies needed to Gb Cityvalyu ( talk) 17:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Warning:Your behaviour is increasingly bordering on the blockable, including the personal attacks too numerous to mention in
this little gem. I suggest that you considerably improve your approach, failing which you will inevitably be blocked for persistently failing to maintain a proper standard of decorum when dealing with other editors. Incidentally, talk pages are for communicating with other users, not for keeping deleted versions of articles.
Gb
T/
c 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- does wiki policy favour letting unrepentant contemptuous violators to go scot free?? does wiki policy favour administrator supporting brazen 3rr violators?? does it favour eloquent administrators turning a blind eye "selectively" (motives??integrity??) to violators like kober??..you have shameful double standards and lack integrity to say the least(you didnt even write a single letter to condemn kober's brazen behaviour!!!)..hence, i shall ignore you henceforth as your character deserves that (still i have no hatred for the life within your body..as per gandhian strictness)..thats the best punishment that "dharma" should give to "adharma"..you can do what you want by abusing your powers or acting selectively blind..i care least...i dare you to act further..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Further to the above, and your antagonistic comments at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, including questioning my integrity, please consider this your last chance. Calling people "Mr. Liar Nato Stooge" is a breach of our policies on
personal attacks. I suggest you tone down your approach, considerably, if you wish to continue editing here.
Gb
T/
c 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- comical to conclude that three non identical edits is violating wiki when user:kober, a georgian (nato prodigy) made 4 edits within 24 hours and not a single user including
Gb had the spine to disprove the proof on display..nor could anyone gather their conscience to act just !!
Gb seems to lack the abilities to condemn kober's violation of 3rr while selectively targetting me although no one reported me and i too have not ignored any intimation to me on that article (unlike him--USERS CAN JUDGE
Gb'S DOUBLE STANDARDS AND LACK OF INTEGRITY IN APPLYING HIS POWERS UNIFORMLY!!!
- There are certain skills which are good to have when editing contentious wikipedia articles. Among those is an understanding that calling your fellow editors names is usually not helpful. Unfortunately not everybody has the right temperament to work in contentious areas, and will sooner or later either change their ways or be ejected from the wikipedia community. I can concede that there are in many cases a western bias to wikipedia (Our coverage of Africa is very poor for example), but if you wish to change that on
Abkhazia you'll first need to understand how to be productive in a heated environment and learn how to contribute light rather than heat to the discussion. The proof is in the history of
Abkhazia, but certain problematic diffs are as follows:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] where you inserted material, then partially reverted their removal in several different edits.
henrik•
talk 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
format , racist favours discussion
Your 3RR report was not in the usual format, Cityvalu. I often help people format 3RR reports. If you would like help formatting a report, feel free to ask me, and if I'm not too busy and if I think a report is warranted I'll likely help you. For a good example of a well-formatted report, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:82.20.235.102 reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours). For how to make diff links, see Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide. By the way, re your comment on 4 September the best way to AGF and not call someone racist is to say nothing about it. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- ok, i shall try a better report next time..racism is everywhere(overt or subtle)..racist "discrimination" is obvously bad(you would agree with me, i guess)..but the sort of racist "favour" (that pro-western whites get) goes unnoticed..if i had done the same thing as
user:kober, i would have been blocked for minimal 24 hours-that is wikipedia's policy(this time i didnt mention racist policy;) lol since wiki can't be blamed for the many of the administrator's indulgence !!!!
Cityvalyu (
talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what race you are, and it seems a likely possibility to me that Stifle neither knows nor cares what race you are. Sometimes people are blocked for editwarring even if they didn't violate 3RR, and sometimes people are not blocked even though they did violate 3RR. Administrators take a number of things into account in making those decisions: one of them is civility. For example whether the person has been saying things like "i didnt mention racist policy". ☺
Coppertwig (
talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Edit wars despite repeated warning earns you a week without editing privileges. Sorry.
DS (
talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- i think it is related to the reversions of the ip edits who had earlier stalked me..you sympathised with me when i was in trouble..i am standing by you now, irrespective of what others think, friend..
Kashmircloud (
talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- KC, thanks for your support..regarding DS, i dont know what edit war you are talking about..!! .if it is about
abhkhazia, then you are wrong since my edit was accepted and so too was my reasoning..if it is about reverting a vandal
user:nangparbat's edits, then you must look at hersfold's vandal watch page to understand..if it is about gb's selective appliication of standards, then i will have to think about racism again..i also noticed that you belong to canada ..that show a 80 to 90 % chance that you are do not belong to the category of victims of racism (rather you could be on the other side..but i dont know..you can tell that better)..so, even if the block is for "edit war", it seems to be retrospective decision almost 4 days after all edits were over(your motives:again dubious!!) and after i refused to take the bait from a particular racist mentality guy..so, your abusive decision is dubious (may be you were contacted outside wiki to do this block), smacks of racism and shame on racist people..just compare this decision with the leniency on a georgian named kober ..thinking of quitting wiki infested with racist guys like you with spineless immoral application of standards..i am sorry if speaking the truth hurts your image, but cant help it..but speaking with a heavy heart nevertheless(on discovering racial discrimination originating from western world (canada))..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 17:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cityvalyu, please comment on content, not on the contributors. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- KC, thanks for your support..regarding DS, i dont know what edit war you are talking about..!! .if it is about
abhkhazia, then you are wrong since my edit was accepted and so too was my reasoning..if it is about reverting a vandal
user:nangparbat's edits, then you must look at hersfold's vandal watch page to understand..if it is about gb's selective appliication of standards, then i will have to think about racism again..i also noticed that you belong to canada ..that show a 80 to 90 % chance that you are do not belong to the category of victims of racism (rather you could be on the other side..but i dont know..you can tell that better)..so, even if the block is for "edit war", it seems to be retrospective decision almost 4 days after all edits were over(your motives:again dubious!!) and after i refused to take the bait from a particular racist mentality guy..so, your abusive decision is dubious (may be you were contacted outside wiki to do this block), smacks of racism and shame on racist people..just compare this decision with the leniency on a georgian named kober ..thinking of quitting wiki infested with racist guys like you with spineless immoral application of standards..i am sorry if speaking the truth hurts your image, but cant help it..but speaking with a heavy heart nevertheless(on discovering racial discrimination originating from western world (canada))..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 17:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- i think it is related to the reversions of the ip edits who had earlier stalked me..you sympathised with me when i was in trouble..i am standing by you now, irrespective of what others think, friend..
Kashmircloud (
talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Edit wars despite repeated warning earns you a week without editing privileges. Sorry.
DS (
talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what race you are, and it seems a likely possibility to me that Stifle neither knows nor cares what race you are. Sometimes people are blocked for editwarring even if they didn't violate 3RR, and sometimes people are not blocked even though they did violate 3RR. Administrators take a number of things into account in making those decisions: one of them is civility. For example whether the person has been saying things like "i didnt mention racist policy". ☺
Coppertwig (
talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
this article has been posted for deletion..i have made the following appeal there:
- do not delete : PLEASE allow editing to take place in this article so that it gets balanced; disabling editing and then crying unbalanced is hypocrisy!!!..As we all know we didn't delete european union article just because there was an "england" article or "france" article or "germany" article (which are part of EU nevertheless) ... Similarly we did not destroy soviet union article just because it is divided into 15 parts..Further it is very very clear that POK is not the same as azad k as pok also includes trans karakoram tract, gilgit and baltistan (from 1947 till now)...pok term is used by most if not all non pakistan media.so ip and soman contention invalid.. i think it is not "fork" since contents are not identical, verifiable, has reliable sources and differs from the other articles like " trans-Karakoram tract" or " Northern Areas" (at the maximum, there is a passing reference in the summary(if this is considered fork) style with redirect links to sub regions).So, i am opposing this high handed move based on ignorance..rather i suggest that those who suggest it as non neutral contribute towards making this neutral, if it is not already neutral..pahari sahib's contention of inflammatory not substantiated both in talk page of pok or otherwise..so DO NOT DELETE Kashmircloud ( talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
if you can improve this article or if you believe that the article can be improved by removing the edit ban(say, exampple: semiprotect) and if you also concur that pok not equal to ajk, please help in saving this article from deleters with nationalistic (pakistani)/ religious(islamist?) motives for POK article removal(example: User:paharisahib is pakistani)..please save the POKarticle... Kashmircloud ( talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
He's the banned user Nangparbat ( talk · contribs). The problem is that he has dynamic IPs, making it extremly difficult to enforce a block. Hersfold has been on him for some time, see User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat. -- Soman ( talk) 10:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- i think this
Nangparbat (
talk ·
contribs) guy, is back..see
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&diff=237972231&oldid=237873266..very likely that he is the same guy who hates india..
Cityvalyu (
talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- And you hate pakistan so whats the difference ?
81.151.101.146 (
talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- i love pakistan but i hate the liars, intolerant fundamentalists, terrorists and vandals(like you,
user:nangparbat) polluting that great nation's image worldwide..that is the difference
Cityvalyu (
talk) 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- So you think im a terrorist seems to me your the Pro indian and anti pakistani alright this wont go down well with administraters freind bye bye now
81.151.101.146 (
talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- i can't help you if you consider yourself a terrorist! further i don't know if you are a terrorist(how can i know that!!!)!! but i KNOW YOU ARE A VANDAL..my reply was in reply to the context of your accusation of "hate"..read above reply properly again...if you read newspapers or visit news pages on net, you will realise what i wrote.. Cityvalyu ( talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- So you think im a terrorist seems to me your the Pro indian and anti pakistani alright this wont go down well with administraters freind bye bye now
81.151.101.146 (
talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- i love pakistan but i hate the liars, intolerant fundamentalists, terrorists and vandals(like you,
user:nangparbat) polluting that great nation's image worldwide..that is the difference
Cityvalyu (
talk) 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- And you hate pakistan so whats the difference ?
81.151.101.146 (
talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, his IP range is widely shared by most of the United Kingdom, and as you've seen he hops around rather a lot. A rangeblock wouldn't do much good and would block many innocent users. I'll block all the recently active IP addresses, but I'm afraid that's all I can do aside from semi-protect your user talk page if you'd like. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- To the IP editor known as Nangparbat: I am leaving this message here as leaving a note on an IP talk page for you would do very little good based on your IP hopping. Cityvalyu is welcome to remove it at any time. You (Nangparbat) are banned from the English Wikipedia for repeated block evasion, persistent and severe personal attacks, and general disruption to the project. All edits that can be attributed to you will be reverted on sight according to the banning policy. Further disruption will lead to an attempt to contact your Internet Service Provider in an effort to curtail your abuse. Stop now. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, I'm getting messages all over just now. I've semi'd your talk page for two weeks - I don't like to protect talk pages for too long since they are here for communication. That should be long enough to get him to get bored and give up on you, I hope. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again, I've posted a notice on ANI about this here: WP:ANI#Nangparbat, round three. You may want to comment. Thanks. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 20:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just providing a tip: If you wish to keep a copy of the deleted article, you can create User:Cityvalyu/Pakistan occupied Kashmir, for instance. __ meco ( talk) 07:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Asking you because I noticed you have edited several Russia/South Ossetia/Georgia related articles. Do you think Mikheil Saakashvili has any qualification for Category:Georgian democracy activists? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I read your comment on User talk:Kober#reported you about the fellow's action. Arey yeh bandheh ka report kaha hai? On both the Abkhazia and South Ossetia pages there is a consistent refusal to discuss his edits. Lihaas ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cityvalyu. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.
Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d
Thanks and best regards,
Mike Lyons
lyonspen |
(talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Cityvalyu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I am asking people related to the
Wiki Project: Jammu and Kashmir or related to Kashmir in anyway for help related to improving the Wikipedia page
Sports in Jammu and Kashmir. The aim is to make it a good article, and also rated as a Good Quality article (
GA) or higher (
FA). Images are also needed as well. LOOKING FORWARD TO A GREAT COLLABORATIVE EFFORT!!! Happy Editing. :)
DiplomatTesterMan (
talk) 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)