User talk:Exciting2015

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:

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 sock puppetry.
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. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; 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) 19:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: You were deleting "experienced editor" tag from my user page, what about this "veteran editor". Entire user page is copy pasted from here. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 20:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. Exciting2015, the Veteran Editor badge requires a minimum of 8000 edits. So it is not appropriate to put it on. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvivo Problem with Burhan Muzaffar Wani

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Burhan Muzaffar Wani, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://nation.com.pk/blogs/21-Jul-2015/burhan-muzaffar-wani-someone-s-terrorist-is-another-man-s-freedom-fighter. So sadly I have removed it.

If you believe that the content is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Burhan Muzaffar Wani and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Burhan Muzaffar Wani with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Burhan Muzaffar Wani.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

--Human3015^TALK 21:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DS-IPA

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.

--Human3015^TALK 11:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Burhan-a 3 year old

The article Burhan-a 3 year old has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Burhan Bashir Bhat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Burhan Bashir Bhat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burhan Bashir Bhat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Human3015^TALK 13:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Abdullah

I've removed your AFD notice on this article, as you did not actually say why the article should be deleted. If you like, you can leave your rationale at the article's talk page, my talk page, or at WT:AFD and someone will complete the nomination for you, or you can go to WP:AFDHOWTO for easy directions and do it yourself. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for disruptive behavior

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 59.89.41.149 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. 59.89.41.149 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Unacceptable edits and edit summaries: [1], [2], [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Exciting2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16122 was submitted on Jul 12, 2016 12:53:02. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting2015 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)I am surprised why i was blocked, i have created this page Burhan Muzaffar Wani few years before and some one is changing it for some personal reason. Check first the history of the page and be neutral in judgement.[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).

Exciting2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. Exciting2015 (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for block evasion and abusing multiple accounts. I've performed a check and can confirm Courcelles's findings. Mike V • Talk 22:11, 17 July 2016 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Exciting2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. Exciting2015 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2016 (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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:31, 17 July 2016 (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.

Please check my account history and see who has created this page. I am surprised on the one hand you are supporting WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir and on the other hand you are blocking me. I have never used the abusive language but my concern is to presnet the view from Kashmiri point of view and not from Indian or pakistani view. Because these both views are different as far as kashmir is concerned. At International level, this matters. Hope you understand. If you will not understand with this then please do not support WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir and good bye to wikipedia. Also then delete the pages which i initiated and created first. Because i think.....

Nomination of Burhan Muzaffar Wani for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Burhan Muzaffar Wani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burhan Muzaffar Wani until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why my account Blocked

I have created the page for which i have been blocked. If there is something we can discuss it in talk page as it is not genuine to block me. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exciting2015 (talk • contribs)

Your account has been blocked for the abuse of multiple accounts (also called WP:Sock puppetry). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Exciting2015. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check Again

This is an organization and many people are working here, so why my account to block. I request again to unblock me as i have done nothing like which needs blocking.