User talk:Toomanyyearskodakblack

Minor edit

Hi Toomanyyearskodakblack! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Zahid Ali Akbar Khan that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Greyjoy^talk 07:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you, sorry about that it's a bad habit lolToomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to leave the same warning. Be careful about that :) – Popo Dameron talk 22:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Mohammad Rizwan has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mohammad Rizwan. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arshad Sharif. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source for a BLP - FlightTime (open channel) 23:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Random, unreliable Youtube videos aren't but a reliable verified news channel is Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2022 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Toomanyyearskodakblack reported by User:FlightTime (Result: ). Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Arshad Sharif. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[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).

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

Request reason:

I was simply using the headline of a verified and arguably most popular news channel of Pakistan. I didn't mean to offend anyone with my edits, the top headlines said he was martyred so I put martyred. In our region we say martyr for someone who was assassinated/wrongfully killed because killed seems insensitive. I hope you understand. Thanks.

Decline reason:

None of this addresses your violations of WP:3RR and WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2022 (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 stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shafaat Ullah Shah, you may be blocked from editing. Multiple editors have removed the icons. There is no consensus to include these. You do not WP:OWN this article. MB 17:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Maryam Nawaz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello 08:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Toomanyyearskodakblack. Thank you for your work on Shafaat Ullah Shah. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about you on my talk page

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#POV and propaganda edits by user where an anonymous user has complained that your edits are not neutral:

Please stop this user @Toomanyyearskodakblack: He is involved in Pro-Imran Khan and PTI party POV & propaganda edits against the political opponent collision government of (Pakistan Democratic Movement) and also against the military Leadership.

You can respond if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the page, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[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).

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

Request reason:

how are they disruptive edits? instead of having a discussion on the talk page they kept reverting my edits for no reason with no explanation. How am I ACCUSING others of vandalism when that's literally what they were doing? Sadaf Naeem sourced info was removed for no reason, Toshakhana reference case sourced info removed when the case isn't referring to one person rather several people. They should've made a new page titled "Imran Khan Toshakhana case", and then on Maryam Nawaz sourced info was removed too. An indefinite block is highly unnecessary considering my contributions to wikipedia including Shafaat Ullah Shah, Bilal Omer Khan, Sanaullah Khan Niazi, etc. The admin who banned me said M.Ashraf only made 1 edit today but that's a lie if you look at the view history they made 3 edits on Maryam Nawaz. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your requests should only discuss your actions, see WP:NOTTHEM. This does not address the reasons for the block; as you don't seem to think that you did anything wrong, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I admit I did vandalism/disruptive editing and added info without proper citation on Asif Ali Zardari and Qamar Javed Bajwa on an edit a month ago. That's all I can think of being vandalism off the top of my head (please remind me incase I forgot). My edits on Sadaf Naeem I can see how they look disruptive since I kept adding info. It's a bad habit and I need to edit and publish only once and do two edits max instead of more than 3 times. Like I said previously, the infinite block is very harsh. As you can probably tell I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning things. I've familiarized myself with most of the rules in the past few days since I've been blocked and will try my best to not make the same mistakes again.

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand the definition of vandalism, which is part of the reason why you're blocked. There is also nothing wrong with making multiple edits to an article. Edit warring is problem, not making edits. Once you've read and understand the relevant policies, you can make a new unblock request that demonstrates your understanding of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2022 (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.

December 2022

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that I did do disruptive editing and edit war on those pages. I have refrained from editing for a month and I've understood the policies and I would like to contribute to help again. I had only been blocked for 48 hours and then permanently banned and I felt that it was unfair. I didn't understand why but now I know because I was violating the 3RR rule, Edit Warring, Disruptive editing. I also now know why my edits were being reverted and thats because adding martyr is a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. Out of frustration I made a new account to contribute again. After making a new account, I improved the quality of the pages including Faisal Sultan, Mir Sadiq. Which have since been reverted by an admin understandably. After studying the policies I now know it was wrong to edit war/disruptive edit and make a new account to edit because previously I didn't know that since I had not taken time to review the policies and I was a relatively new wikipedia user. As you can see I have not violated any policies since then. I have learned from my mistakes and promise to try my best to not violate these policies again. Hypothetically If I violate these policies again (which I now know not to), you are free to ban me permanently and I won't appeal at all. Please reconsider and give me one more chance. This would be an early Christmas gift for me :). I look forward to positively contributing to Wikipedia once again and you will see that with the first edit I make. Thank you.

Decline reason:

This does not address your personal attacks and political agenda. Furthermore, you were caught just last month evading your block. Frankly, I think it's unlikely you'll be unblocked until you have gone at least six months with zero edits (as per WP:SO) and likely you'll need to suggest a WP:TOPICBAN. You'll also need to more directly address the problems that lead to your block. Yamla (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2022 (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.

@Yamla Hi I was going through unblock requests and saw that you helped someone with their request and you've reviewed my previous unblock request which was poorly written and didn't address the violations. Can you please take a look at it now? Thank you so much! Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sockfarm is Highly likely to the Popsmokes38 sockfarm. --Yamla (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Shafaat Ullah Shah

Hello, Toomanyyearskodakblack. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Shafaat Ullah Shah, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Shafaat Ullah Shah

Hello, Toomanyyearskodakblack. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Shafaat Ullah Shah".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]