User talk:NA122

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) 10:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir conflict reverts

Dear NA122, You seem to be a new editor. So, let me explain the issues with your revert [1] privately. You have a link to the Wikipedia policies in the welcome message I have given above. Please study it, especially the pages talking about "Five pillars."

As per WP:RS, all material on Wikipedia should be sourced to reliable sources.
When unsourced content is deleted, you should not reinstate without adding reliable sources. WP:BURDEN says Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
Likewise, any material that is correctly attributed to a reliable source should not be deleted without reason and justification. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason. The reason can only be on the grounds that the source used is a minority view point and has been given WP:UNDUE weight. If it is undue, you need to be able to demonstrate multiple reliable sources that contradict it.

Your revert was highly improper. Normally, I would have reverted such a spurious revert immediately. The only reason for giving you 24 hours was so as not to inflame passions in an article that has the potential to do so. But you did not respond.

Your revert did provoke an edit war bringing in unregistered users that apparently like edit wars. My well-sourced content has been deleted repeatedly. And, you have reverted it again this morning, again without justification. "Let us discuss" is not justification. You have not discussed anything since your original revert.

I am pinging NeilN to give you further guidance because this kind of behavior is inappropriate. I am also going to give you a bunch of warning messages. Please study them carefully before taking further steps. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 It is relevant.[2] NA122 (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Kashmir conflict 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA notification

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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 i have not done any 3 reverts. Human3015 has see [3] [4][5] . Will you report him ? NA122 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has not exceeded 3 reverts. And, all his reverts were justified. So there is nothing to report yet. Both of your reverts are not justified. If you want to engage on a difficult topic like this, either you should collaborate with the rest of us or study the policies thoroughly so that you know what is permitted and what is not. I encourage you to collaborate rather than choose confrontation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is what i am doing I am using talk page and will also expect you to use talk page on sensitive issues like kashmir conflict before expansion of article. NA122 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not how it works. Nobody needs anybody's permission to make an edit. But the edits must accord with policies. Likewise any revert must accord with policies. Can you show me the diff of a single policy-based issue you have raised with the content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Can you show me the diff of a single policy-based issue you have raised with the content? - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NA122. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a final warning here that logging out to continue editing disruptively and making baseless accusations against others will lead to a block of your account. You need to follow WP:DR and stop flinging mud at those who disagree with you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I will try to follow WP:DR. Thank you very much for your good guidence. NA122 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 very unfair action.I saw new SPI by an IP against me. Now who was that IP may be sock of Kautilya3? Surprisingly this IP had master level knowledge of wikipedia? I never edited any language page then how can you relate me with LanguageXpert? In SPI he linked me with some one filing against a group for movie relevant issue. Neither I edited any movie articles nor any other user filing SPI against a group could be linked with any other. I use internet shops/cafes so if any of these all fking IPs concided with me via check user THEN IS NOT IT SICK TO BLOCK ME FOR ALL THIS. same group of indian users used IP to file second SPI against me and you immediatly gave them justice. what about SPI filed by me? will i get check user response. WILL I GET JUSTICE. Bbb23 look if you are a genuine person then treat every one fairly and equally and remember to dig how these indian editors have converted wikipedia as India foriegn ministry press release. But i am dead sure you will not react positivly because justice is a remote thing in today times. NA122 (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]