User talk:39.47.184.157

June 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. Thomas.W ^talk 17:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved party in this dispute between you and other editors so I'm not particularly concerned which way it goes, but the status quo is the article as it was before you removed all that content. A discussion must be undertaken then changes can be made. All this can accomplish is to get the page protected from editing again. Please don't abuse your editing privileges. Dustin (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dustin V. S. what a shame if no one respect WP dispute resolution mechanism. Disputed para reinstated and protected unethically days over days. Justice being delayed. Are these WP standards of neutrality. what a shame for such so called un biased admins. 39.47.184.157 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a dispute, you must leave an article as is and try to achieve a change through discussion, not discuss whether the change should be reverted. It only makes sense. I was worried the page would be protected after I saw you edit warring against some other editors, and as a result, nobody, including me, can edit the article. You will just have to discuss this and try to achieve a consensus with other editors on this matter. Dustin (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,User:Dustin V. S. there is generally accepted practice in the world that once a matter is disputed between two parties then legally and ethically neither party try to impose his version and get page protection by using his greater WP knowledge or alliances again and again to keep it for ages. I used talk page for disscussion 20 days ago see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict then by mutual agreement we all went to dispute resolution noticeboard here https://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Please stop clever childish and unethical practices; User:Dustin V. S. Similarly see offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. I want justice for all including me. 39.47.184.157 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2015 (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:39.47.184.157 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: ). Thank you. Thomas.W ^talk 17:33, 26 June 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) 20:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.