Jump to content

User talk:Panekasos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


November 2024

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to First Anglo-Afghan War have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: First Anglo-Afghan War was changed by Panekasos (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.916473 on 2024-11-30T08:52:56+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Third Anglo-Afghan War, you may be blocked from editing. Edit wars about "tactical" in inboxes are so lame and so 2007! If you continue to edit disruptively, you will be blocked. BusterD (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panekasos (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Third Anglo-Afghan War. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 01:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Third Anglo-Afghan War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BusterD (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for changing it I didn't know so please just change them Panekasos (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you unblock me and change the result from the third war.sorry for what I did. The British

beat the afghans militarilyin the third war becausethe afghans invaded and were repelled back and the British also bombarded them . So the British won militarily but Afghanistangot its independence eventually.ai learned this from variousarticles including yours . (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

also please change the first war Anglo-Afghan War as well together with the third war because the first war a pyrric victory for the British because they sent an Army of Retribution and this army beat the afghans sacked cities and took revenge in general. And this information I learned it l from your article and from some others. Please unblock me and change the results. Because the British won militarily both times in the first and third anglo afghan wars and you mentioned it as well in both the articles so please just change the results and I will stop bothering you. I promise. So could you please change the results in both wars and make them say British military victory because the British won militarily but strategically is another issue. And you know it too since you wrote it in your articles. Please change the results and put the British

as the victorious militarily in the first and third war.Panekasos (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not really arguments why you should be unblocked. BusterD (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and once again I'm sorry for editing without permission. Panekasos (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at First Anglo-Afghan War, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Noorullah (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are tou blocking me that's not fair let's discuss this first Panekasos (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw others agreed with me so do not tell on me just because you disagree let's have a conversation Panekasos (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BusterD (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2025 (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).

Panekasos (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I changed the results in the 2 wars with sources and the user Noorullah still kept changing them despite the fact that other people agreed with me. So please remove the block or put an expiration date because now I'm just trying to create a discussion and change the results and stopped trying to change them.Panekasos (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you:
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2025 (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.

  • I have requested BusterD to issue an unblock. However, I would urge you to read WP:DR and avoid any sort of canvassing in the future. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is tragic Panekasos finally found someone who would agree with them on the merits, just as their own poor behavior choices have precluded their further involvement on the page. User:Ratnahastin has politely approached me on my talk and made a case for unblocking. I've declined. Panekasos's edits today were all clear canvassing. I'm not seeing any regret in these replies, just over and over "I'm sooooo sorry (but just give me my way)". This is neither a collegial nor an encyclopedic approach to editing English Wikipedia. If I'd be willing to limit the block to the two infobox pages and their talk, do you think they will suddenly stop in their course? My block was preventative, not punitive. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third anglo-afghan war

[edit]

@Dr vulpes can you remove my block please? Panekasos (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third anglo-afghan war 2

[edit]

@Ratnahastin can you put the see outcome back in the result section? Also can you block indefinitely or ask to block indefinitely user Noorullah because he is even stalking my account and always asks admins to block me so since Noorullah is biased (probably because of his ethnicity) can you ask for a block on this user? Panekasos (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin not only biased but keeps disrupting the page and puts his POV without sources and he doesn't get any punishment but for me he complained and got his way when he's also disrupting the page without sources as well because I provided sources but he kept rejecting them without evidencePanekasos (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's talk page privileges are revoked

[edit]

Since the latest indef, as block evasion this contributor has chosen to both 1) use one of two created socks and 2) edit while logged out. Today they have again made pleading cases on this talk page that A) they are correct, B) their view should predominate in pagespace, and C) other contributors are bad. Panekasos refuses to act in a collegial, mature manner. I have tried to educate the user, but I have failed. For my part, I will consider contact from this user or their alternates as vandalism, and add such to the investigation archive. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There are many versions but they all say the same thing. This means we are all here for the same reason. To make a book. The biggest book you can imagine. A book so gigantic it will never be complete. A book which lists everything a human being needs to know about every topic. A book written in every language. A book which is free to everyone who can find it. One of the most important books ever written. And you were editing it.

I take that seriously. And so do my many friends.

If you feel mad right now because you were blocked, I feel your pain because I was blocked once myself. But you were blocked because you were interfering with the Purpose of Wikipedia, not because you were making mistakes. The people you want to help, my friends the wikipedians, had to spent time on you and your disruptive edits. That was taking them away from making the book. Do you think mankind should have a book like the one we're all building together? If you do, read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Don't just go there, read it. Read it again. Click on every link and read every one. Then go back to The Five Pillars, and read it again. BusterD (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

[edit]

The general rule is one editor, one account. The creation or use of an additional account or IP address to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Sockpuppetry, Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is one of the worst mistakes some users will make on Wikipedia. Read about it. Editing under multiple accounts is really bad, People who do this are telling us they don't care about the pillars and the policies which spring from them. Without policy, we don't have time to create the book. So you've disappointed a number of people today including yourself. BusterD (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of new editors

[edit]

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, an important guideline, reminds us that "Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once.... New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing...".

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth#Treatment of new editors; Passed 14 to 0 at 05:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Why am I trying to help you even when you are blocked?

The fourth pillar is respect and civility. We demonstrate respect to others because it is their due. We act kindly to each other because manifesting such trust is a superior platform to help us write our book. It's always about the book. Nothing is more important here. Plus, none of us knows when "our great gettin' up mornin'" is gonna be. I can only speak for myself, but I prefer to be treated as a person, not as an objective, a tool, a data point, an anecdote. As a wikipedian, I'm a serious person doing serious work. In my seriousness, sometimes I get over focussed and need a friend to remind me I am mortal and all glory is fleeting.

Needing a friend involves having friends to count on. Some folks keep their own company, and I've been that guy. On Wikipedia, you will meet people. You can't avoid it. Some of them will be kind and others will not. For me making true wikifriends is one of my stronger motivations for staying. I have noticed that not everyone who tries to edit Wikipedia is great at it. Twenty years ago, nobody was an expert here. I turn wiki-20 in July. It's possible you are making fun of me by your edits, maybe you're trying to cause trouble, perhaps you have been dishonest with me. I choose to assume good faith. I choose to believe I'm helping a wikipedian who hasn't found their voice quite yet.

I'm helping you because it's the right thing to do. And that's how me and my friends roll. Call me naive, but just sign your post with four tildes. BusterD (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]