FreeKashmiri

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Hello, I'm CASSIOPEIA. I noticed that in this edit to Lost Kashmiri History, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

My Lord (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts

Please do not undo the closure placed on this AFD discussion. The speedy keep closure criterion is valid, as this article is currently listed on the Main Page under the Did you know section. This is covered under criterion 6 listed on the AFD speedy keep closure guidelines page. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know by messaging me on my user talk page here and I'll be happy to help you. I appreciate your understanding. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

Blocked as someone's nationalistic sockpuppet and I don't care who. Naming the master isn't necessary to see that you are a sock.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block makes no sense because it has no real evidence as a rationale. Ok so the blocking admin said

Checkuser results weren't helpful

This means CU did not support their conclusion,

but I have blocked the accounts as socks of someone. With meatpuppetry, it may be hard to tell who they belong to

This shows that the block lacks evidence.

but they are of the same POV sock cloth.

Heaps of people in the contentious topic I edit share the same POV. Its not a big issue.

my block is behavioral based. You are not able to use my results to exonerate yourself. You and Alive4islam operated as socks/meats. I agree with Softlavender's comment.

If Alive4islam was my sock they would have helped me out before for example when my AfD nomination of Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts was not being accepted or they would've reverted people who reverted me like was done on 1987 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election. We just happened to agree on a few things on Alastair Lamb, but even then we didn't go supporting each other in solutions. Alive4islam gave no support for my last proposal for that article. Maybe they could have even been an impersonator or baiter. I cannot say. Your checkuser tools can show you we are unrelated. Alive4islam is no more related to me than Kautilya3 and Winged Blades of Godric are to each other. If Alive4islam was my sock why did he not support my last proposal? The block should be reversed. FreeKashmiri (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I concur with the blocking admin; this clearly is a sock account. Whose sock it is isn't necessary to be figured out before we can block a disruptive sock. Huon (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Even the blocking admin admits they can't support their conclusion from CU." No, I didn't. Lie much?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't conclude that you were Faizan so the checkuser results aren't applicable to you. Could be Faizan...but it doesn't matter because my block is behavioral based. You are not able to use my results to exonerate yourself. You and Alive4islam operated as socks/meats. I agree with Softlavender's comment.

"Heaps of people in the contentious topic I edit share the same POV. Its not a big issue." The community have wearied of this and no longer interested. New measures are about to be taken and the banhammer is about to fall more. Some of the scheming and attempts to escalate and impersonate are going to backfire on the schemers. POV warriors are going to be shown the door.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)