Welcome!

Hello, Zmaghndstakun! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Faizan (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Wellcome

edit

Please let me know

Sockpuppet investigation

edit
 

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/TripWire, 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.

Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 18:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

June 2015

edit

  Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. if you continue to edit while logged out, you risk being blocked and banned from Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit

  Hello, I'm Ponyo. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Baloch people, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Adding more !votes

edit

Hi, please note that I have previously asked you to please stop adding new Oppose !votes to the discussion at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan. Your !vote on the matter is amply noted. Resubmitting this starts to look like you are trying to stuff the ballot box. If you do it again, I will have no option but to take it up at WP:ANI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your comments here, though I don't blame you for not being familiar with RfC etiquette because you are presumably a brand new user, after you have been politely asked by an editor more experienced than you to please not keep voting, it would seem the reasonable thing to do would be to take their advice. But to continue voting is disruptive. Fabricating rules like "With paasage of time and in the light of new comments every one has right to oppose or suppourt time to time" is based on zero experience in RfCs. If that's not the case, please let me know which other RfCs you've participated in where people were encouraged to provide multiple !votes. If you wish to Comment, feel free to add a Comment. But pretty please with sugar on top, no more votes, as this draws undue attention to your position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources

edit

Please take a few minutes to read our pages on reliable sources and on synthesis. Some of your recent edits have added non-reliable sources and you're using synthesis in several places. Basically, each claim you make needs to have a source that supports that entire claim. For example, you have a source that says "Pakistan is considering taking up the issue of Indian involvement in Balochistan unrest at the United Nations". Your edit also adds specific mention about the Indian agency RAW in that claim. You need a source that specifically states that Pakistan is considering bringing up Indian involvement through the RAW agency at the UN. Ravensfire (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

July 2015

edit
 

Your recent editing history at Balochistan, Pakistan 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
Please carefully read the WP:3RR page, plus the other advice you have been given. You are edit-warring on that article and are at 3 reverts. Continuing to revert will put you past the 3RR limit and you may end up blocked. Worse, you're adding poorly sited information using bad sources and not listening when people point you to our policies on reliable sources and synthesis. Almost most as bad you're leaving some rather poor grammar and spelling mistakes in your preferred version. Please stop and discuss. Ravensfire (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've started a talk page discussion Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan/Archive 1#Taking to the UN claim to discuss the claim. Please participate without further reverts or you may end up blocked for violating the WP:3RR policy. Ravensfire (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have not done any edit war. You ojected to forum sources inserted by me but deleted all including others. I inserted back NON FORUM but mistakenly one forum source still wrongly left which you deleted. Thank you. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yup, you edit warred. Read the pages I've linked here. And YOU need to verify and vet the sources you add. ALL of them. You did NOT do that. Worse, you lied about it, saying there were no forums in what you added. Seriously? YOU need to verify EVERY source you add and you failed to do so. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
In fact you are edit warring but I will remain patient. Thank you Zmaghndstakun (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio

edit

Hi Zmaghndstakun, the content you've submitted a few times like here is problematic, which is why other editors keep removing it. You've basically copy/pasted content from the article without properly attributing it. That violates our copyright policy. If you want to present some of the content as a quotation, you could do that so long as you were quoting the right person. Since the article is summarizing what Bugti said, you can't quote Bugti directly, you'd have to quote the person who wrote the summary. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

edit
 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Balochistan#Recent_changes". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EdwardH (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

3RR reminder

edit

You have reverted Tank, Pakistan within the last 24 hours. Your account is subject to being blocked for any further reverts within that time frame, per the three revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I cought unaware. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I m 100% sure this user is aware of these rules but he/she is again and again going against the rule,he/she is punjabi nationalist is adding wrong info and writes against Pashtuns,Balochs,saraikis and other minorities.--2.91.223.253 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Completly Base less I am niether a Punjabi nor I am adding wrong information. You please stop personal attcks. I just restored good faith last better edit. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The things you are adding have no base and no references , I m living in Pakistan (especially in khyber Pakhtunkhwa and i know about every place of KPK. Things you are adding are seem to be completely wrong if you thing you are doing right job then give reliable refs.But all of your edits are going against all minorities except Punjabis.--2.91.223.253 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I Have not added anything. I have just restored good faith last good version. In fact you are hurting KPK minorities by showing Pashto all over KPK reducing Hindko, Saraiki and Kohistani areas. If I retore better map of KPK. No punjabi exists in KPK so your blame of Punjabi Nationalism is utter Baseless. In fact i see a block coming your way very soon. Cheers IP cover of Jasimkhanum10 Zmaghndstakun (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I did not show Pashto all over KPK ,I know about every Place of KPK as well as other provinces of Pakistan,Anyway now i want tell that first you should discuss on talkpage before reverting it. Reverting again and again is not a solution of problem we should discuss it first becuase by consensus you can find the solution--Jasimkhanum10 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit

Visit :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa#Languages --Jasimkhanum10 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

August 2015

edit
 

Your recent editing history at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Thomas.W talk 18:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

AN3-notice

edit

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

edit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 19:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edits

edit

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (  or  ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Forumshopping

edit

Zmaghndstakun, you've posted this charge of "personal biasness" by one editor in at least a half a dozen different places. One is enough: this is highly disruptive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

edit

The following sanction now applies to you:

A 3-month ban from editing articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, all broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for edit warring and tendentious editing. See here for more information.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ceradon (talkedits) 13:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ceradon I am utterly surprised for being topic ban from India Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reason number one: I have never edited any india / afghanistan page. Number two: I never voilated any WP rule except 3RR on Tank and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa pages for which maximum you shold have blocked me for 24 hours on first Offence. I question Blind following of volunteer comment of a DRN competitior user Cyphoidbomb on ANI. Now how will I able to comment on DRN. Actually by doing so user Cyphoidbomb has denied my right to speak on DRN to which I was party. Can I call this democracy? Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply