User talk:Astral Prince

You have no choice but wait for Six Months. In that time don't create any account.

If you wish to appeal this block, first read Wikipedia:Appealing a block, then visit the unblock requests system (UTRS). Or Use Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee, when you will be request unblock in future. I would advise you to try that after 6 months.--Cosmic Emperor 10:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:TOPGUN this is my single Wikipedia account which I use to log in through my Lumia 630, and I don't know about any user named User:KnightWarrior25. Astral Prince (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

can anyone explain me about what I can do so the admins can unblock me Astral Prince (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a battleground for nationalistic sentiments. And those are precisely what you displayed. Downplaying your edit-warring because you "just reverted edits done by pakistani editors" shows that you have an utterly uncollaborative attitude. We expect all editors to work together for the betterment of the encyclopedia, irrespective of nationality. You haven't addressed that concern at all. Huon (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry dude, but believe me I didn't vandalise any Wikipedia article, I promise you I will not repeat that again, just give me a last chance I will not engage in an edit war in future even if I'm right Astral Prince (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Apologies, it looks like you were correct all along. I see you were just trying to correct those problems. Have this beer on me for the trouble I've caused you. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Battle of Phillora has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Battle of Phillora was changed by Astral Prince (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.874019 on 2015-05-17T08:22:06+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sukhoi Su-30MKI. Your edits continue to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sukhoi Su-30MKI was changed by Astral Prince (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.934752 on 2015-05-17T10:34:05+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Prince, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The

Adventure

Hi Astral Prince!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. lTopGunl (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Chawinda. lTopGunl (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kargil 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. lTopGunl (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Battle of Chawinda. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mar4d (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Faizan (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the past too, there have been many attempts to count the peasants as Pakistani soldiers. In your edit, you included a purely Indian claim of killing Pakistani rangers on new year's eve. Unlike other , this claim was not supported by Pakistani or neutral sources, so we put it in "Indian Claims" in the infobox. Faizan (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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/Warwar86. Thank you. lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2015 (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. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Prince, it appears you've been constantly reverting to insist on a decisive Indian victory since the middle of May, while you've never posted on the article talk page. There is a complaint about your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Astral Prince reported by User:TopGun (Result: ). Unless you will agree to take a break from this article an admin may choose to block your account. Admins may feel they have no choice. If not, it seems you will revert forever, no matter what other editors think. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now this edit suggests you are rallying the Indian editors to support your side. Have you ever heard of WP:ARBIPA? Do you think that ethnically-based POV-pushing will go unobserved and unsanctioned? EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well EdJohnston, i agree it's my fault that i didn't posted this on article talk page, Let me clarify your few doubts, You said I'm involve in an edit war since middle of may, well just see the history of Battle of Phillora you can see i just reverted edits done by pakistani editors, for ex:- few days ago an Anonymous editor erased the causality2 section and it's references and he added imaginary claims there like most of the Pakistanis do, I just reverted there edits and no Other editor has complaint about that, and you can also see the conversation between me and User:Winner 42 he reverted my edits because I didn't mentioned what I have edited but later he agreed that I'm just trying to solve those problems.

now talk about User:TopGun , just ask him why do he is erasing the word " decisive " from Indian Victory on the Battle of Phillora while I wrote every time that mentioned references support " Decisive Indian Victory " and do read them before reverting my edits.

Is he feel shamed that his country has faring miserably in all wars.

and ya I'm confident that India won the Battle of Phillora " Decisively.

How do you define victory in an Battle??

You captured enemy territory ( India captured Phillora )

You thwart enemy offensive/infiltration with teeth ( achieved in Battle of Phillora

the enemy retreats from his territory ( Pakistan ran away from Phillora )

you took more casualty on enemy ( India - 6 tanks damaged , Pakistan - 66 tanks destroyed ).

Conclusion - India Won the Battle of Phillora " DECISIVELY.

you all can read Battle of Phillora and match my stats.

and now talk about those 5 reference mentioned on Result section.

like for ex :- reference no.1 on article " ^[1] do read page 84.

it is written " In the Sialkot sector, the tank battle continued for fifteen days and on September 11, in a decisive battle fought at Phillora, the Indian troops destroyed 66 enemy tanks on that single day. " Battle of Phillora Indian casualty were only ( 6 tanks damaged ).

and do read remaining 4 reference to, they all supports " Decisive " Indian Victory. Astral Prince (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=qYK0BhcgwaQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:9788170998907&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ATN0VfCyAYTpmQXQjYGICQ&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Phillora%20&f=false

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long-term nationalist edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at WP:AN3 (permanent link). You responded at AN3 in a very partisan manner, excusing your reverts by the fact you were only reverting Pakistanis. By doing so you gave even more evidence that you don't belong on Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

it is unfair, I have not vandalise any article, the admins can see the page history, I've just reverted few edits done by users because they have removed the sourced content, I have also discussed the problems on talk page for ex Talk:Battle of Chawinda before correcting those problems, it was my fault that I didn't discuss Battle of Phillora on the talk page but instead I mentioned on the editing that the references mentioned supports "Decisive" Indian victory and appeal others to read them before reverting my edits. That's it! Astral Prince (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: you must not edit war, even if you're right. This includes reverting removals of sourced information, too - unless it's simple, unambiguous vandalism. However, the overall problem of battleground attitude is even more important here, and any unblock request should address it to have any chance of succeeding. Max Semenik (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

give me a last chance, i promise that i will not involve in an edit war in future even if I am right, i will try to solve problems by discussing them with other users. Astral Prince (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, a Standard Offer approach could be taken in this case. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2015 (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.

What about your obvious block evasion as KnightWarrior25 which started after your last unblock request got declined? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry , I promise you admins, I will not engage in any edit war in future in any case. Please give me a last chance , I will not do it again, and i will make productive contributions instead. Please give me a last chance! I will not do it again, and i will make productive contributions instead Astral Prince (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have already been given the standard offer. This is reset every time you edit Wikipedia. If you wish to take advantage of this offer, you may appeal again after December 9th, 2015, provided that you have not engaged in sockpuppetry during the intervening period. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:36, 9 June 2015 (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.

If edit-warring were the only issue, I would be willing to give you another chance on the basis of your assurance that you won't do it again. However, there are also your general battleground approach to other editors, repeated personal attacks on other editors (for example, calling them "dumb Pakistanis" "idiots" and "stupid") and the fact that your editing is clearly motivated by a strong desire to promote a nationalist point of view. The single most decisive thing about your editing history is your remarkable statement "You said I'm involve in an edit war since middle of may, well just see the history of Battle of Phillora you can see i just reverted edits done by pakistani editors". In the light of remarks like that, I think the offer you have been made to have your block reconsidered in six months is quite generous, and I suggest you accept that offer. Since the offer was made, you have twice posted further unblock requests which are effectively just repetitions of what you have said before, with nothing new to offer, so your talk page access will be removed for the time being, to prevent similar requests from causing further waste of administrators' time. My intention is that talk page access will be restored in time for you to take up the offer in six months. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lopki90 is back. JamesBWatson, can you please have a look at his contributions? Faizan (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

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( which is not possible now). 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) After 6 months. Again, welcome! Cosmic Emperor 10:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astral Prince, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. What's the meaning of this notification if the user is blocked? As if he is being instigated to open sock accounts to respond to SPI.Cosmic Emperor 16:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=qYK0BhcgwaQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:9788170998907&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ATN0VfCyAYTpmQXQjYGICQ&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Phillora%20&f=false

[1]