User talk:Jab1998

Welcome!

Hello, Jab1998, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Cerebellum (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

October 2021

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Battle of Mogadishu (1993). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Loafiewa (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Battle of Mogadishu (1993), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Loafiewa (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Battle of Mogadishu (1993). Loafiewa (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Bias

Judging by your contributions, you clearly have a hypernationalistic, inaccurate viewpoint on certain conflicts. Please disclose your bias. It it better to get consensus on outcomes than just to use Call of Duty ratios.

Also for reference, the 2011 NATO-Pakistan conflict has an unknown number of casualties for NATO, not "zero casualties". Please read the article first.

FIREYSUNSET (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

How am I being nationalistic? How did Pakistan win this? The US military destroyed the Pakistani military in the last engagement and the conflict then ended after political talks between the two sides. Pakistan having their forces blown up isn’t a “win” Jab1998 (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Engagements are defined as having outcomes desired prior to the engagement fulfilled. This was not the case, as the US was legally required to evacuate Shamsi Airfield and had supply routes cut off for weeks. Destroying the military in an engagement is not the definition of victory since the political outcomes were not to the US favor.

If you want to call this a victory, you may as well consider the Soviet War in Afghanistan a Soviet victory, considering the Soviet army destroyed the militants each time there was a pitched battle (seeing your bias in the US/Afghan-related articles as well). Though I doubt that you would give the Soviet Union any credit for anything due to your own biases. There were severe tactical defeats for the US side (and the other side) in the War of 1812 and Korean War, yet the outcome was more or less a strategic tie as both sides accomplished a little bit of their desired goals, and some not.

Your bias has become so strong that you are unwilling to consider the 1993 Mogadishu Battle (Black Hawk Down) a loss or a mixed outcome, considering that Mohamed Farrah Aidid (the most important target) was not captured. Calling it a US pyrrhic victory doesn't even make sense, considering everyone agrees that the SNA took way more casualties. They just stopped certain US objectives. The Consensus for this page (see the talk page) was generally either not saying the outcome, or calling it a Pakistani victory, as they denied the US supply routes. If you continue to engage in edit warring and inserting biased nationalistic beliefs on Wikipedia, I will warn you to the administration for vandalism and NOT respecting the consensus on this site.

FIREYSUNSET (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You want to report me? Go ahead nothing will happen because I’m doing nothing wrong. I’m on the verge of reporting you. Pakistan suffered heavy casualties. On the field of battle, they were dealt a strong blow by the US. How is having your outposts destroyed a “win”? Even if you want to consider that a win, why are you removing the following from results:

• US military destroys two Pakistani military outposts
• US military causes heavy Pakistani casualties

both of those are accurate. Seems to me you are the one with nationalistic bias here Jab1998 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"Go ahead nothing will happen because I’m doing nothing wrong. I’m on the verge of reporting you."

You have engaged in edit warring with numerous users. You have violated the "3 revert rule". That is not allowed on this site. You made a total of 5 edits on the mentioned page, 4 of which involved reverts. I made 1 edit, where I was actually quite generous to your side by initially saying the results were disputed, despite the article saying "Pakistani Victory" for many years now.

Wikipedia:Edit warring

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Causing heavy casualties and destroying the other side is not the definition of victory in this context. The number of US casualties is unknown and was not released, thus you cannot generate a Call of Duty K/D ratio.

I hope you are this generous enough to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the Soviet-Afghan War, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the War of 1812, and the People's Republic of China in the Sino-Vietnamese War. Because these countries clearly did some heavy damage and killed a lot of people, even if not all of their goals were achieved. Given your nationalistic biases, it seems clear that you have no interest in writing these out. I was willing to hear both sides of the argument until you engaged in edit warring.

I am not Pakistani, nor do I have any Pakistani ancestors or relatives. I am loyal to the facts and consensus only. That is the state of Wikipedia. If you do not believe in this rule, go to some other website. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Somalia, the US lost the conflict because they failed to capture Aidid or destroy his militia. However the battle of Mogadishu was a victory because the goal was to capture lieutenants of Aidid which was accomplished, and the US inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy while suffering way less. The US won the battle, yet lost the war Jab1998 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You have move goalposts regarding your previous arguments made in 2021. The Battle of Mogadishu, you claimed, was a "Pyrrhic United States Victory".

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)&oldid=1048447513

Now you are calling it a victory of the Somali side while talking about your vaunted K/D ratios "US inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy while suffering way less ". Make up your mind.

It seems clear you did not read any substance of articles, and are only here to edit war and jingoistically promote American propaganda in a way that would make Fox News and Bush-era neoconservatives blush (The First Barbary War was not a US victory as the US government still paid ransom, but the Second Barbary War was), although you seemingly have poor knowledge of the English language and grammar skills, judging by your previous edits. You have been blocked from editing before due to your persistent edit warring.

If you do anything out of line again expect a report. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Hello, I would like to point out your consistent changing of the status of the "Pakistan-United States Skirmishes" article. Neutral assessments align with the belief that the Pakistani Government was the victor longterm with the United States forced evacuation of Shamsi Airfield fulfilling this narrative. The United States had to PUBLICLY apologize on the matter for their supply routes to be secured and acknowledge Pakistani sovereignty. That is a clear moral and political victory for Pakistan. Hence, I shall change the status. "Skirmishes Ended; Pakistani Political Victory". Thank you. Izaan Iqbal (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)