Dustum Khan

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Ascension Monument (October 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:National Ascension Monument and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 01:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Dustum Khan, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 01:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finley22 Waterman, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Quinton Feldberg (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reverting me!

Please stop socking and appeal from your original account. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean?

Log in as Finley22 Waterman (talk · contribs) and make an appeal on your talk page. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How do I log in as Finely22 Waterman?

Oh, that's right! You can't! You'll have to appeal on meta for the stewards to unlock your account. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My account isn't locked?

• 02:53, 5 October 2017 RadiX (talk · contribs) changed status for global account "User:Finley22 Waterman@global": set locked; unset (none) (Long-term abuse: Finley22 Waterman)

I'm afraid it is! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But I am still using it?

I meant your original account! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How do you even know about my original account?

Because you are a brand new account showing up and restoring edits made by previous User:Finley22 Waterman socks. That raises a lot of red flags. And your response to my accusation matches that of previous socks as well. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I not restore edits? And how does restoring edits make you know about my original account from back in 2008?

The timing is very suspicious. And all of the earlier accounts that made the exact same edits and the exact same response ended up getting blocked as sockpuppets. So I have no reason to believe that this one will be any different. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

So basically you are saying I didn't do anything wrong? I just did ok things at the wrong time?

I'm not trying to prove that the edits themselves are wrong. Right or wrong, I am still using them as evidence for the case. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you need to delete my edits for your case? Please do not do that!

 Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU ARE DELETING MY GOOD EDITS! OR STOP DELETING THEM!

Because you are currently not allowed to edit Wikipedia due to a block on your previous account, which you have given me no good reason to believe that you are not a sockpuppet of. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I AM NOT BLOCKED! Everyone is allowed to make edits unless its un-constructive! Your edits are unconstructive!

You were blocked under a previous name. Shouting doesn't prove anything. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But my old account was only blocked for 1 day! And it was a very long time ago. Please show me the rule where you are allowed to delete my edits.

I'm afraid Finley22 Waterman (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely. As I've told a few of your previous socks, WP:BANREVERT is the relevant policy. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That only applies to reverts.

No it doesn't. Read again. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Just please do not revert my edits without having a good reason about the actual content. They are good edits and you don't have to remove them.

I'm gonna have to start requesting page protection if you don't stop edit warring! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor" I'm assuming that that also applies to edits made by someone who has reverted some edits made by a banned editor. I also think you may be ignoring this"If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do."

Yes, I know. But those same edits were reverted by experienced editors in the past and I don't see any reason to not revert them again. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should look a little deeper and see that you are restoring typos and inaccuracies alot. Also not a reason to delete my draft article.

You are also restoring content that was previously reverted any typos that you may have fixed came bundled in with the content additions. Please make minor edits separately. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Alot of the content is also sources that make the page better sourced. You, by reverting, are creating problems for the artile

Do that separately. Also, please stop making disruptive reports. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You are disrupting the reports. You should be the one only deleting bad content but letting the good content stay.

 Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting steward assistance as no admins seem to care enough to block for some reason. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Question for administrator

<Above user keeps deleting my edits and when I report him he deletes the reports.>

--Dustum Khan (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably not a wise decision. Lol. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Still not a reason to delete my draft article.--Dustum Khan (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Your recent editing history at Template:Atatürk Monuments shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Does not apply to reverting persistent vandalism.--Dustum Khan (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Other way around. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You should really look in to what you are actually editing instead of mindless reverting.--Dustum Khan (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really

 Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure about that?

 Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure?

 Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Quinton Feldberg. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of active Pakistan Navy ships have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.  Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

They were well thought out. Not a test. False positive here.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Al Bernard. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges.  Looks like a duck to me WP:BANREVERT Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Stop warning template spamming. The edits made were relevant and constructive.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of active Pakistan Navy ships, you may be blocked from editing.  Looks like a duck to me WP:BANREVERT WP:BANNEDMEANSBANNED Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of active Pakistan Navy ships.  Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
How is fixing links are adding relevant categories vandalism?

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page India–Pakistan field hockey rivalry. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it.  Looks like a duck to me Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)