User talk:Jasimkhanum10

Hello

Sangay rora ? Ta waly dalta bal pakistani editoran sraa jng kaey ? Hindugaan bya zmong kmzoraee ba faida akhee. PakhtunYar (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Tank, 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. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Jasimkhanum10 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Actually one Punjabi nationalist is trying to write against Pashtuns,saraikis and other Minorities,My Purpose is only to removed those wrong info that are added by that person which has no base and are non-factual.Punjabis are also a part of Nation I m not against them but some people are trying to spread wrong infos.I would request you to see all mine edits and also that person's , so then you will understand what actually the matter is.Thanks--Jasimkhanum10 (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that my warning had nothing to do with the content of your edit. It had only to do with the quantity of reverts you have made within a 24-hour period. Editors can be subject to even stricter limitations on a number of topic areas related to India and Pakistan, so please edit carefully. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're also at the three revert limit in Mansehra. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit war started again by using IP now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.91.223.253 Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its not edit war, I m cleaning the dust you have thrown on the floor--2.91.223.253 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personal attcks use talk page as a tool to get WP concensus before edit warring with pro/ anti nationalist slogans. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I m not blaming your edits are clearly shows what you are doing--2.91.223.253 (talk) 17:57, 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) 18:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmaghndstakun: This time the only solution of this problem is to discuss it on talk pages lets discuss it, and you said that we are showing Pashto all over KPk, so let me clear that this is not reality.I my self love all people living in my country.

Jasimkhanum10, you are invited to the Co-op!

Hi there! Jasimkhanum10, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

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]

Pre dispute version

see here how Pakistani and Indian editors were fighting over a dispute but pro india disputed version was kept in line with WP policies till dispute resolved in 40 days https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&action=history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmaghndstakun (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmaghndstakun: where is this wikipedia policy show me.I know you are just lying.--Jasimkhanum10 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=667529351&oldid=667520770 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmaghndstakun (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN3-notice

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. Thomas.W ^talk 19:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal biasness shown by Cyphoidbomb

I had a talk page disscussion over balouchistan Pakistan where my position was oposite from Indian User Cyphoidbomb. All ended with a concensus but now with out being relevant to a dispute (between me and User Jasimkhanum 10 on maintaning pre dispute version of article), Cyphoidbomb started persanol revenge game. 1. He misrepresented me on ANI read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=675320060&oldid=675310006 2. He deleted pre dispute version of Khyber Pakhtunkha and took Jasimkhanum 10 side and voilated WP principle that in case of dispute a pre dispute version will be maintaned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmaghndstakun (talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sta daira manana

Rora ta dair koshish kary da tusiyano da propaganday khilaf, kho ta da kar kawa, che baghair login la editing kawa, da tusiyano da pages. ok awo InshaALLAaH, za awo ta bai was pajama kao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilswati (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a talk page disscussion over article balouchistan Pakistan where my position was oposite from User Cyphoidbomb. All ended with a concensus. After that for another article Baluchistan I am here on DRN against User Cyphoidbomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Balochistan.23Recent_changes, but with out being relevant to another article's (Khyber Paktunkhwa) dispute (between me and User Jasimkhanum 10 on maintaning pre dispute version of article), Cyphoidbomb started persanol revenge game. 1. He misrepresented me on ANI read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=675320060&oldid=675310006 2. He deleted pre dispute version of Khyber Pakhtunkha and took Jasimkhanum 10 side and voilated WP principle that in case of dispute a pre dispute version will be maintaned. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ma kwa rora

@Jasimkhanum10: @Adilswati: @UsmanKhan: da tusi pkhpal pak da para dushmn(yindu) sra der jng kray dee. gora blochistan o kshmir hr zaey. pregda mraa. aghaee map hechs na dee. aghee map accept kwa. Mung Pakhtana pkhpal shan di. yindugaan agha ta blok kaee bya sok yindugan sra zmoung wtn jng kaee. KHUDAE PA AMAN. PakhtunYar (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

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 (talk • edits) 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceradon Ponyo This user has again voilated 3 month ban here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa&type=revision&diff=682724838&oldid=682687497. Before this edit he was socking via IP 2.89.217.66. Already he was blocked once for this voilation in last month LibraStone (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back ground

User Cyphoidbomb ! the problem with Indian editors like you is that you have a coward approach. On Balouchistan Pakistan Talk page when Mard4 and Paksol opposed your anti Pakistan edits you got them edit ban. Then RFC or RFC redo to force your anti pakistan edits. I opposed it then you filed SPI to proof me sock of Paksol where you failed. Even on Baluchistan Talk page you tried the same. Then you started monitering my contribution and got me topic ban just like Mard4 and Paksol. My fault was that I was trying to maintan a pre dispute version to which even edit worrier Jasumkhanum10 also agreed finally but you guys misused that situation to get me topic ban. If all greater baluchistan have sepratism elements then why you guys from india want to show Pakistani Balouchistan in bad light? A poor coward approach of deceptive cheatness. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for checkuser confirmed socking to skirt AE topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

You are retired, your user page says so. Either remove that template or stop posting. I am sure there must be some rules governing that on Wikipedia. Sheriff (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually today I saw that a Punjabi nationalist user (and his sockpuppets) are continously adding wrong Info about Saraikis,Pashtuns,Sindhis and Balochs. Please help me to stop that sock puppet by adding wrong info, He has no proof or reference but just writting according to his mindset--Jasimkhanum10 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

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. LibraStone (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sockpuppet accusations

You've accused LibraStone of socking. Please provide evidence here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've added "cases" to this SPI twice now. Each time it was done improperly, and each time I've removed it. Go to WP:SPI, carefully read the instructions on how to open or reopen an investigation, and follow them.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block for topic ban violations

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violations of topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "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."

@Bbb23 And yet again, as soon as the last block ended. -- SMS ^Talk 23:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You are very good editor Kuni. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.254.20 (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kohat

Hi, I saw your edit on Kohat. But Kohat are Hindko majiority. I have made that edit on this link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kohat&type=revision&diff=683322768&oldid=683296912. Pashtunkuni (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 11 topic ban violation

To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violation on the page Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, you have been blocked from editing for a period of three months. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "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."