User talk:CrashLandingNew

Welcome![edit]

Hi CrashLandingNew! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! SKAG123 (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alert for India/Pakistan/Afghanistan related articles[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

August 2023[edit]

Hi CrashLandingNew! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Hyder Ali several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Hyder Ali, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. SKAG123 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Asian social groups[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jat Muslim. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't able to give my comments when I was reported by user:sutyarashi. I have not engaged in an edit war. On few pages, I removed uncited material, which is unreliable and misleading for the readers, with proper edit summary. I have engaged in talk page discussions and even initiated some myself. User:Sutyarashi has been editing articles with a certain POV, which I fact-check from time to time. How can I be blamed for edit warring, when I am just factchecking his edits? I should be unblocked.

Decline reason:

By definition (WP:3RR) you have engaged in an edit war. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:35, 11 September 2023 (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.

You were blocked for the edit-warring at Jat Muslim, and have made no edits to Talk:Jat Muslim. Even if the content was unsourced, with the exception of certain BLP materials, removing unsourced content is not an exception for WP:3RRNO and so repeatedly doing it (especially after an additional clarifying source was provided on the talk page) is still edit warring. After your removal was contested the dispute should have moved to the talk page. Per Wikipedia:Edit warring: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. - Aoidh (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was reported and eventually blocked for the "edit-warring" before the talk page was activated. How could I have taken part in the discussion there? Also, if restoring the preferred version is edit warring, why have only I been blocked, why not Sutyarashi? CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page comment was started at 14:39, 18 minutes before you made your fourth revert to the article, so you could have responded to that talk page comment before reverting further. However you did not need to wait for the other editor to start a discussion; once it was known there was a disagreement you could have initiated the talk page discussion before making further reverts. As for why you were blocked and not Sutyarashi, you specifically violated WP:3RR, continuing a disagreement on content from March and made four reverts within two hours, at 13:37, 14:03, 14:21, and 14:57 with no attempt at discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intimated regarding the talk page, this page is not on my watchlist.

Only the edit at 14:03 is a revert, which was carried out to undo a revert by Sutyarashi at 13:56. Others are well explained edits. As far as disagreement since March is concerned, this goes for the other user too. CrashLandingNew (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are arguing about less than 36 hours. It's rather pointless. Why not just take your medicine with dignity, The time will pass quickly enough. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, in fact, I'll be busy at work for the next 24 hours to spend time on Wikipedia, it's just that I am not convinced that I did anything wrong here, the whole thing happened ex parte. CrashLandingNew (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comment above about how you believe only one of the edits is a revert, my advice to prevent a similar situation from reoccurring would be to read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Undoing the edits made by another editor is a revert, and you do not need to press the "Undo" button in order for an edit to be considered a revert. If someone adds content and you then remove that content, that is by definition a revert. - Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jat Muslim. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after your block for edit warring expired, you reverted back to your preferred version on Jat Muslim, as well as well making a series of reverts across other pages, continuing the slow moving edit wars on pages such as Zutt and Hyder Ali. It looks like in total, after your block expired, you immediately resumed reverting back to your preferred version across half a dozen articles or more. You did make some talk page comments such as Special:Diff/1175168168, but until there's some sort of consensus on the talk pages of these articles, you should not continue to repeatedly revert to your preferred version, as that is still edit warring. You have both been blocked for continued edit warring because it is apparent that this is still ongoing, and needs to be prevented. I can't simply protect one page because this disagreement between the two of you is ongoing across multiple articles. - Aoidh (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that per the notice given above, the articles involved in the edit war fall under Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Continued edit warring will very likely result in contentious topic restrictions such as a 1RR revert restriction (meaning you may not make more than one revert on any page in the topic area within 24 hours, as opposed to the standard 3RR) or a ban from either specific pages or the topic area entirely. - Aoidh (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at List of Punjabi Muslims. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Indian National Congress, you may be blocked from editing ZenDragoX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 06:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for you. Don't add your POV as facts. Whatever I've added is as per the sources. Learn to read sources and don't engage in edit war or you would be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not POV. It was added there after discussions. Wikipedia is not a election Commession. Kindly read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. ZenDragoX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 06:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought' part. Thanks CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its sourced content. You are adding your thought part. Secondly before giving me warning of WP:BRR on my talk page page. You should know about WP:BRR and check your recent edits. ZenDragoX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 06:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Elaborate your stand. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable. All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. ZenDragoX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 06:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, then why did you revert when detailed edit summaries were already provided? Instead of reverting you could have used talk page. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for 2 times to the previous version as you were reverting sourced content. I suggested you to use talk page but you reverted it some seconds. ZenDragoX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 07:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted. I only added information as per the sources cited with proper edit summaries. You blatantly reverted. Observe the difference. CrashLandingNew (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting multiple people on multiple pages, multiple times over the same thing. Have you thought that maybe you're doing something wrong? You should stop now. ECI results don't determine someone's party affiliation forever. They change over time as people move around. MrMkG (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring after three blocks for the same behavior. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INC[edit]

Hello @CrashLandingNew:

Can you please remove the thre Indian flag colors from the infobox of Indian National Congress, as they were recently added by a user without any reference. I am unable to edit the article as it is protected.

I have explained the reasons for these edits here - User Talk:Bairagi Ram#INC. Thanks.

Yours Bairagi Ram (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]