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:

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Cerebellum (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Also, FYI, I was not the guy who removed

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

from the results. That is this guy here who also happened to comment on your talk page:

User talk:Izaan Iqbal

I was the original editor who removed "US Victory" and put "Disputed results". It's such a victory for you to push two editors with different opinions to work together. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding Somalia, I stand by the fact that the battle of Mogadishu is a US victory, however the war it was part of (operation gothic serpent) was a loss. In Mogadishu the US achieved its objective of capturing Audie’s lieutenants and it caused way more enemy casualties than it suffered. Operation gothic serpent (which Mogadishu was a battle of) was a failure due to the fact that the US did not capture Aidid, destroy his militia, or being stability to Somalia which were the goals of gothic serpent Jab1998 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"caused way more enemy casualties than it suffered"

Here is the page for the Quasi-War, where US suffered much more losses then France. I assume your jingoism will prevent you from going to this page and putting "French Victory" on there. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely though, how is this a Pakistani win? Every news article I read from BBC, to CNN, to Reuters all mention severe Pakistani casualties and losses while saying nothing of US, NATO, or Afghan casualties. Pakistan retaliated politically afterwards by closing a base and a supply route but then reopened the supply route after a US apology Jab1998 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan extracted diplomatic concessions from the US and punished US supply lines into Afghanistan. That is worth more than 30 soldiers, which I doubt is very severe, considering Pakistan has 560,000 troops. Please be honest and realistic. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the outcome for the Battle of Mogadishu was a US/UN retreat, which cannot be called a victory. If you want to be fairer, you can say, See Outcomes or See Analysis or Disputed or Both Sides Claim Victory. However, you seemingly have nationalistic beliefs and are unable to ever accept the fact that the US has ever lost anything, going so far as to move goalposts on casualty counts in order to justify your predetermined beliefs. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally said the US lost operation gothic serpent which Mogadishu is a part of Jab1998 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current outcome says 'Inconclusive, see Aftermath' and gives a few key points. Best outcome is to come to some disputed results section instead of edit warring. This also has happened to other battles/wars as well. My suggestion originally was to keep this Pakistan conflict as disputed or absent, as this is more accurate. If you want to make the case that it is a US victory, go ahead to the Talk Page for this and make your case.

If you try to implement your knowledge of warfare from Call of Duty to real life conflicts, please learn that this is not how most people see it and refrain from making unilateral edits with no consensus.

FIREYSUNSET (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The goal for the US in Mogadishu was to capture Aidid’s lieutenants and this was accomplished, therefore making the battle a victory. The US lost the war in Somalia. In addition the US lost in vietnam and afghanistan. I too am loyal to the facts. How do the facts support this engagement being a Pakistani victory? Their outposts were destroyed and they suffered heavy losses, I’ve seen no news station reporting any NATO/Afghan casualties and Pakistan eventually reopened the nato supply route after an apology. What did Pakistan win here? Jab1998 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The goal was to capture Aidid, which did not happen. There was also no second attempt to capture him, and he was killed by other Somali warlords later on. I am generally open to discussion w/regards to wins and losses, and my overall analysis is compromise/put in Disputed Outcome if neither side got all their goals.

NATO casualties are listed as unknown as this is not within their normal scope of operations in Afghanistan. For similar political reasons, the Soviet Union and now Russia won't be listing their pilot losses in the Korean War, as they did not admit participation openly.

Heavy losses is subjective. The losses were less than 100, that's hardly heavy by anyone's stretch. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

CS1 error on First Barbary War

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page First Barbary War, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barbary Wars. 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. M.Bitton (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not an edit war. I edited it once today to revert it back to the status which has existed for years. I teach history. The Barbary wars ended ultimately as a US victory with the pirates being permanently defeated in the 1815 campaign. The edits to the contrary are sabotage and I’m just merely fixing the sabotage Jab1998 (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has read US victory for years in the result section. I have a masters degree in history and teach history. Changing the results to show otherwise is sabotaging the article Jab1998 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an edit war (you reverted someone's edit and when reverted, you reverted again to your favourite version). What you claim to have is irrelevant and meaningless as far as WP is concerned. M.Bitton (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more revert and you'll be reported. That's a promise. M.Bitton (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report me and I’ll report you. Editing this page to show anything other than US victory is sabotage Jab1998 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2024 (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:Jab1998 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Barbary Wars. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals were sabotaging a wiki page. The result has read US victory for years and they are changing this due to incorrect beliefs on history. I have a masters degree in history and teach history. Don’t we have an obligation to undo sabotage? Please look at the talk section of the page and see the comments made in the last 24 hours Jab1998 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2024 (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).

Jab1998 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was protecting a wiki page from sabotage Jab1998 (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you are saying is that you think your edits were correct, but that is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that their edits are correct. For the block to be removed early, you will need to describe how to resolve editing conflicts without edit warring. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2024 (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.

The Barbary wars wiki page has read “US victory” for years. Someone edited it to read “inconclusive” and then I changed it back to US victory. Afterwards, other editors kept deleting the results page and I kept editing it back to US victory. I teach history and have a masters in the subject. The US-Barbary conflict ended with the second Barbary war in 1815 as a US victory. Don’t we have an obligation to undo sabotage. I understand we are supposed to debate opposing views but if the other “view” is just plain wrong and contradictory to historical facts then why should that “view” carry any weight? If someone edited WW2 to delete “Allied Victory” from the results, do I really have to debate the person when it’s a fact that the Allies won? Deleting facts, especially facts which have been on the page for multiple years is sabotaging the wiki page. I was protecting the page from sabotage. Not sure how to do it but I’d like to request the Barbary wars page to be protected and for the result to read US victory

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20fought%20two,held%20in%20the%20Barbary%20States.&text=The%20practice%20of%20state%2Dsupported,wholly%20unusual%20for%20its%20time.

Jab1998 (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: What the user is saying is significantly worse than their edits are correct. The unblock request is a personal attack. I see no distinction between calling other editors' edits vandalism and calling them sabotage. With such an attitude, they are more likely to be blocked indefinitely than unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2024 (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).

Jab1998 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I engaged in the talk section of the article and wanted to protect the integrity of the article Jab1998 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were doing the right thing by attempting to reach consensus on the article talk page. You were doing the wrong thing (by Wikipedia standards) by edit warring on the article page to keep your favored version in place. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:30, 23 February 2024 (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.

I don’t know why my previous unblock request was labeled a “personal attack”. I understand everyone engaged in edit warring believes themselves to be right. However some things are not up for debate. Sometimes, people are just wrong. Please read the talk section comments over the past 48 hours on the Barbary wars page. I did try to educate other editors on the historical facts. Please research the Barbary wars. You’ll see that I’m right regarding my desire to bring back the “US victory” result which had stood on the page for multiple years. In history either something happened or it didn’t. Just like the WW2 analogy I made in the previous attempt, if someone is just historically wrong and if they refuse to acknowledge that their facts don’t line up with history after talking to them in the talk page, don’t we then have an obligation to edit the page regardless to show the facts? Jab1998 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And when persuasion failed, and when they failed to see reason, you you used what you thought was a more potent argument. And trying to bolster your argument with "sabotage" in your edit summary tells me you are not compatible with a collaborative project. I'll maybe come back to decline later. Au revoir, I have a dog to attend to.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing visions of longer blocks in the future. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a history of ultranationalist comments regarding the United States, attempting to make this website similar to Baidu Baike in terms of bias. Judging by his year "1998", he was probably heavily propagandized as a youth in the post-9/11 era. Please reference the earlier sections... FIREYSUNSET (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatically, this user has broken the three revert rule multiple times regarding the 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan and Battle of Mogadishu (1993), all changing either non-US victory to US-victory and using Call of Duty K/D ratios to justify the outcomes. I threatened to report him, but decided against it. He deserves a longer block, given that he will likely override the three-revert rule again in the future. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason= how is this edit warring Jab1998 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

So if a user removes a historical fact which has been in the article for years, and if you try to educate the user in the talk section but they refuse to acknowledge historical facts, we can’t just simply override them? We have to allow fallacy to impact Wikipedia? We have to obtain a mutual consensus even if the other side is just plain wrong and refuses to acknowledge widely accepted historical facts? So if someone writes that Hitler survived WW2 and refuses to acknowledge his dead in the talk section, do we have to let that stand? I make that comparison because writing that Hitler lived is just as factually wrong as removing “US victory” from the Barbary Wars article Jab1998 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. You cannot "simply override them". Everyone involved here believes they are doing the right thing. That's why we have our rules against edit warring and entire policies and procedures for dispute resolution.--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jab1998 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have never engaged in sock puppeting Jab1998 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Partially accepted; indefinite block lifted and original block reinstated. Yamla (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very surprised to see I have been blocked for sockpuppeting. Jab1998 is my only wiki account. I have only ever been active with jab1998 and even then I barely use the account. I have never communicated or conspired with anyone to make edits on my behalf. Jab1998 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Reasonable block, but it looks like 19Zombaras98 actually belongs to a "joe-jobbing troll" responsible for Filet McFish O'Donalds, Jares8, Ænus McWeef, and Mooraster, based on CU evidence. Not the first time their joe-jobbing has been successful. This account was previously blocked for one week. What are your thoughts on shortening the block back to the original one-week block? --Yamla (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Welcome back from your vacation! Block adjusted. Sorry, Jab1998.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]