User talk:ABHIMAN 19

May 2020

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dominion of India have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Dominion of India, you may be blocked from editing. Katie^talk 14:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Baltistan. - Arjayay (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Borders of India, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Arjayay (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir what wrong did I write? It has no legal validity in constitution of Pakistan so I wrote de facto. It has legal validity in constitution of India so I wrote de jure. The favoritism of yours should have a limit. I didn't vandalise Wikipedia. ABHIMAN 19 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ABHIMAN 19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't why I was blocked. Please unblock me. I edited some pages on Wikipedia related to my country's history and I wrote the correct thing according to history and reality is what I've written. The whole world knows that the areas of Jammu and Kashmir occupied by Pakistan and China is an integral part of India. I was said that my edits were baseless and have no relevance, I'll support my statement against my ban with the proof of a Wikipedia page itself. [1] See this the Maharaja Hari Singh had signed an Instrument of Accession with India for acceding into India in return for military help against the invaders of Pakistan. The whole world knows that it belongs to India. The British parliament passed a resolution stating that Gilgit Baltistan is the legal part of India occupied by Pakistan it was tabled on March 23 2017. Despite knowing the facts it is shameful writing the pages " To please some particular group of people". I'm shocked that I am blocked because of writing the facts. I'm shattered by your acts. Sorry.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for violating WP:EW. Note also that you seem to misunderstand sourcing requirements. For example, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; see WP:RS. Regardless, you were blocked for edit-warring. Whether you are correct or not is not relevant. Yamla (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sir, the reference I provided has the original copies of the Instrument of Accession and if you want sir I would be pleased to give you sir. Please don't try to suppress the voice of others. I'm ashamed to support the lifting of my ban by using such words but it's true. Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABHIMAN 19 (talk • contribs)

This is not relevant. Your violation of WP:EW is the only thing relevant to lifting your block. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ABHIMAN 19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was told to support my words with a reliable source. Here's a "most reliable source". [1] I "hope" you'll surely consider "this source" as reliable.

Decline reason:

You have already been told your block is nothing to do with any source, it is for edit warring. That is what you need to address. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock discussion

You might benefit form reading User:Deepfriedokra/ew to better understand how to avoid edit warring and how to better present an unblock request. As there is a concern about sourcing, "all content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." You may want to address these points in your next unblock request. Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mirpur, Pakistan. - Arjayay (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Burushaski, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Arjayay (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please stop vandalism articles as you continuing doing at Pakistan Army, Azad Kashmir, Kashmir conflict, Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Ytpks896 (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What wrong did I do? I just changed thay map as the state has been bifurcated into union territories. You pakistani can't digest the fact that we've done that. I'll again change it

ABHIMAN 19 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This is antithetical to editing here. You are now blocked indefinitely. WP:GAB will tell you how to contest your block. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's unethical is there sir? Isn't it true that those are now union territories? What wrong did I do? ABHIMAN 19 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antithetical, not unethical. --Yamla (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's antithetical in that? Why he reverted my edits? What was wrong? I just updated the map. I didn't write like someone has occupied or not. What's wrong in updating the map? The updated map is present in different articles related to india so where I saw the old map I updated it. What's wrong in that? What's directly opposing in that? ABHIMAN 19 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you the links of articles where the updated map is present . ABHIMAN 19 (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Edit warring and tell us what is wrong with the linked message. Secondarily, I'd also say to read WP:No personal attacks and tell us what's wrong with your conduct toward the editor(s) you addressed in the message. —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was not edit warring. In indo-sino border conflicts there is a updated map. In the page of Aksai Chin there is the updated map.

And for the personal attack on that person, I apologize. ABHIMAN 19 (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're halfway there. Instead of "I'll again change it", how should you have dealt with other editors contesting your edits? —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should've shown why I changed that. I truly apologize that. ABHIMAN 19 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you found his conduct rude and offensive then see this-

I havo no time to answer you're fake allegations, if you have any proof then talk with me, next time without any proof do not disturb me understood. Ytpks896 (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all I have made no Allegations yo him and then he is being so disrespective will you block him say will you! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW:I want your inputs in this case can you please give a review and tell something what should be done with ABHIMAN 19. Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's anything that "should be done with ABHIMAN 19" right now. Up to 13 June C.Fred was engaged in trying to lead ABHIMAN 19 towards showing an understanding of what the problems are, no doubt with a view to moving towards a successful unblock request, so perhaps he would like to comment on what ABHIMAN 19 said after C.Fred's last comment, but other than that I can't see anything that I can suggest should be done unless ABHIMAN 19 makes a new unblock request. JBW (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As is evidenced in this thread, I feel that there is a serious issue with this user not understanding what edit warring is. This is compounded by their interest in India- and Pakistan-related topics, which is an area prone to disputes and edit warring. In my opinion, this user should not be unblocked until they demonstrate an understanding of what edit warring is and why it is unacceptable, even when they're trying to add the "right" information.

Part of me also thinks this user should not be unblocked unless they accept a 1RR or 0RR for topics related to India and Pakistan, broadly construed. Another part of me thinks that such a restriction would just be setting the user up for failure, though: they would quickly cross that line and wind up with a long-term site block. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ABHIMAN 19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for being disrespective to a editor named Ytpks896 . He warned me for a editing done by me on the articles said by him though the edit had not violated any of the rules, instead I updated that particular section of article according to other articles related to it. I talked him in a way which was disrespectful and I've also apologised for the same. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

Though you have addressed your inappropriate comment, you have not addressed the edit warring, and as such you will need to describe how to handle content disputes with other editors. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

according to the reason told to me above for blocking me, I was not blocked for edit warring so I think I'm not required to address about that.

I see your attempts to get unblocked are not yet getting anywhere, which must be frustrating. Here are a few comments which I hope may help you to stand a better chance of being unblocked.

I can't see anything anywhere saying that edit-warring was not one of the aspects of "disruptive editing" that led to the block. If you are to stand any reasonable chance of being unblocked you will have to persuade an administrator that you understand all aspects of the problems, including edit-warring. The way it looks to me is that the fundamental problem is that you are convinced that you are totally right and therefore anyone who sees things differently must be wrong, and must be opposed uncompromisingly. That manifests itself in several ways, including, but not limited to, edit-warring, aggressive approach to editors with whom you disagree, and difficulty (if not actually inability) in seeing that others may have a different point of view just as valid as yours. If you decide to make another unblock request you may find it helpful to think over those points, as well as reconsidering the other things that editors have said to try to help you understand what the problems are. Also, did you take the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before making your unblock requests? If you did then I suggest carefully re-reading it, and if you didn't then you should certainly do so before making another unblock request. JBW (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JBW, this is very good advice. ABHIMAN 19 you seem to be here to, as you put it, edit related to my country's history and I wrote the correct thing according to history and reality is what I've written - in other words WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I highly recommend you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing though I am trying to assume good faith it really doesn't seem like you are here to work collaboratively. Your comment "I'll again change it" really says it all. Glen 11:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen:He will understand. I will make him understand just he gets over this Block. Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui:Yes you may think that, but now I am reading the rules and understanding them-And just to make you believe that I am going to write down the things that I have understood: 1.)Whenever we edit something we need to provide sources for that and it should be reliable as many of the sources are blacklisted in Wikipedia. So, whenever we edit we need to make sure the source is reliable and also should be written carefully and properly inside: [1]. 2.) Whenever we write something it should be in our own words we should not just copy it, we should read, understand, think if it is an good fact worth noting in the Wikipedia page, see if it is a reliable source, and then add it properly at the right spot with reference included. 3.) Whenever adding a image we should make sure it does not have any copyright problem in it and should use commons wizard(the only way I know how to upload a file) to upload a file and if possible mention the source <! >(IDK about this tag) </! >. 4.) Never make a second account without a notable reason (the thing what I did when I did not know about it). For example-To start a fresh (what I wanted to do) because you understood your past mistakes, to avoid harrasment (IDK much about it) and link your second account with the reason to make it to your first account. 5.) Always respect other people and if a problem then first have a discussion with them on their talk page(which I breached once in a fit of rage sorry to @Killarnee:. 6.) If you do not mention about your first account and use it for vandalism (which I swear I did not) it comes under Sock-Puppetry and you may be banned indefinitely. 7.) Never urge your friends and family to make Wikipedia accounts to support you in a topic as it comes under Meat-puppetry. 8.) To give a hyperink to something add, for example-, Ready or not(2019 film) to that thing. 9.) Always read the rules and understand them before editing(I will keep that thing in my mind now) This is what I have understood while reading about Wikipedia and will follow them Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

See this one of my unblock requests, I think yours should also address every problem caused by you then it may favour you and you may get unblocked!! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred:Although I don't want that to happen with him, I will have to agree with what you said it is correct he may end up getting a big site block. So unless he gives an understanding he should not be unblocked Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tylertoney Dude perfect: I've apologised for the personal attack on that user, I truly regret speaking to him like that. For the editing of maps on that pages It was correct as the map I updated was already present in the Wikipedia database and was already present in many of the articles of Wikipedia. I still can't understand why I'm blocked still now. It's not the case of edit warring, for personal attack on that user I again apologise. What else should I do to contest my unblocking request. I've done everything I should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABHIMAN 19 (talk • contribs)

It is for edit warring. You've refused to acknowledge that you were edit warring by repeatedly editing the maps or to explain what you should've done differently. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well his map was actually correct but he was rash that was his problem! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly sir, the map was correct. the article of Baltistan, PoK (please don't refer this word of mine for further rejecting by request as we all Indians call it as PoK),Kashmir and many more articles related to the erstwhile J&K state conatins the updated map, hence I intended to update that on other articles, this doesn't violates any of the rules. For my dirty (I'm using this word coz I regret my behaviour as I said above at many instances) behaviour against that user I've apologised I really regret that. Please unblock me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABHIMAN 19 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But tell me somebody(C.Fred or JBW) did he do edit-warring or is it just for he said I will do it again if you removed it? Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhiman, it does violate the rules when you keep adding the same map over and over again without getting consensus to include it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok So it is about the map. If he just gives Acknowledgement about edit-warring then he can be unblocked. Pixel Lupus (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Sir I know that rule about repeated editing the same page. I just changed it once on that single day. I didn't change it over and over. Please unblock me!

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ABHIMAN 19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm accused of edit warring saying that I've repeatedly changed maps on the pages said by @Ytpks896: as he described my editing on those pages (The pages have been written above)as vandalism of Wikipedia.I edited those pages and updated the maps according to map present on other articles related to that dispute. This clearly proves that I didn't vandalise Wikipedia. As sir @C.Fred: said that I repeatedly changed the map over and over again which in turn violated the rules. I'm confident that I didn't repeatedly change those maps. Even if you think I did violate the rules, apologise me. I did personally attack @Ytpks896: for which I've apologised and I regret that. I request the Admin to unblock me!!

Decline reason:

I'm sorry no. You still seem to show little understanding as to why you were blocked nor any intention to behave any differently if unblocked. In fact to the contrary you are still claiming you were not breaking any rules "even if we think you did", Unless you can clearly demonstrate you understand why you were blocked and a clear intention to not repeat the same behaviour I fear you will continue to be declined. I fail to see why you are struggling so much to grasp these simple concepts when multiple editors have linked to numerous policies and guidelines outlining why your behaviour does not align with the goals of the encyclopedia. Just be aware that continued requests of the same nature may actually result in your talk page access being disabled. You have taken up a lot of editors time. Please read what we have all written carefully and do not make another request unless you understand and agree to comply to Wikipedia policy. Glen 13:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ABHIMAN 19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been accused of edit warring. I've understood my mistake and I apologise for my mistake and I assure that I'll never engage in such activities again and again. I also again apologise for speaking to a user in an inappropriate way. Please unblock me!

Accept reason:

I will grant the unblock request, with one condition: you may not revert another editor if they reverted you. Your habit of edit warring was serious enough to warrant such a restriction. If you violate it, you are likely to be blocked again, indefinitely. You may appeal this restriction in three months at WP:AN, where your behavior will be open to community scrutiny. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Zee News, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]