Jump to content

User talk:Gameboy1947

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Gameboy1947, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Operation Enduring Freedom has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Timeline of the Kashmir conflict, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan security forces

[edit]

I checked all of your edits, like I said in the edit summery most of your entries from today were from 2008, which is not needed to be covered since a number for that whole year has been provided. You didn't make one or two mistakes, only three entries were good. Also, several more of your entries were doublecounting of already listed incidents. I checked everything. Also, check the Afghan security forces losses confirmed by time periods section of the article. It has covered the number of killed policemen from the start of January to the end of February of this year.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are inserting incorrect information, which I have noticed is a trend with you. I would advise you to be more carefull in the future since some editors can consider that to be vandalism and could block you.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|I dont know whats my mistake or error but i say sorry and tell me whats my mistake so i try to remove that mistake and i promise that mistake cant happen.}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Mifter (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know whats my mistake or error but i say sorry and tell me whats my mistake so i try to remove that mistake and i promise that mistake cant happen. Please accept my sorry and tell me what i was done for which my user blocked. What should i do to unblock my user?

Please forgive me and unblock my user.

[edit]

Please anyone please unblock my user.I beg you to unblock my user. If ii was done any mistake or violate any error so i am sorry. I want to edit several articles like software articles, war articles, etc.If you unblock me so i edit those pages with a correct refrence. Please give me one more chance and if i done any mistake then tell me. Please, please, please accept my sorry and forgive me.

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

  • Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
  • Read our guide to improving articles
  • Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
  • Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
  • Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
  • Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
  • When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
    • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doesnt understand 2nd last point which you write.Please eplain how to appeal unblock with administrator.Please help.
If you feel you understand wikipedia's policies, agree to its guidelines and have made a significant contribution below add {{unblock|your reason here}} to your page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No response.What should i do now?
The administrators are usually slow. It may take a couple hours. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They reject my unblock appeal.What should i do now?Please do something to ublock my user.Or contact to an administrator and requuest him to unblock my user.Is my unblock appeal (which i write above) is correct?Please help.
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).

Gameboy1947 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I almost read guidelines and i promise to follow guidelines and rules.Please unblock my user.Now i follow rules and guidelines.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for a disruptive username as well, which your unblock request doesn't address. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2010 (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.

Mujahid, do you understand why your unblock request was denied? Your username, "Mujahid" is considered offensive, especially here on English Wikipedia. In order to edit on English Wikipedia, you will need to change your username. This means that your next unblock request will need explain that you intend to change your username (or use another account) once you are unblocked. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using another account is probably not a good idea. Usernames can be changed at Wikipedia:Changing username. You would need to indicate that you intend to change your username on this page here however, as you cannot edit outside of your talk page while you are blocked.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark: While I think that every administrator who considers making a decision on the block of Mujahid1947 should look at all aspects of the case closely, I also think that, if a blocked user does not address an issue that the user should address, it would be best to let him know about this, and to give the user the opportunity to address the issue, before making a decision. I have been involved in finding pages that needed to be protected because of the IP editing of the blocked user, and Mujahid1947 really needs to make clear and explicit statements on how he intends to change his editing behaviour.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think edit without a user is better because if you have any user and it will blocked then your p also blocked.I mean after blocking of your user you cant edit any page, even after the ip changed.3 or 44 months before when i have no user i edit freely on those articles which is still i edit.But one day i find a page maybe insurgency in kashmir article.I want to update that article but cant because only registered user can update the article.So i make my user and then i involve in user booring puzzle.Anyways no one block my user during first 2 months because i think i doesnt use my user.But after that ii starting using my user annd my user blocked.I cant edit any of my editted articles from 2 weeks.
Anyways as now i involve in this puzzle, so i have another user named "Akhlaque1947" which is also blocked.Nick-D block my 2nd user by saying that your first user is Mujahid1947.That means that this user puzzle doesnt give an benifit.
OK.How can i unblok that user or how to change name of this user.
The block of your user is not a technical issue. It is a decision by Wikipedia administrators that they do not want you to edit Wikipedia articles unless you are changing your editing behaviour. Editing with your IP does not solve the problem. On the contrary, the articles that you are editing with your IP will sooner or later all be protected, and you probably will not have a chance to edit with this user name or any other user name again if you evade your block and edit without being logged in.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i know that now-a-days if i edit any article or edit any talk page of article that article become protected.Its al after the block of my user.Before blocking of my user when i edit through my ip then no one protect that article and no one block my ip.Anyways what should i do to change editing behaviour.I mean my ediits are limited only a few articles.And i also make a correct refrence of each edit.How to say sorry with the administrator?
I see that you are citing sources for your edits. However, before Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs) was blocked, you did some edits with that account that did not represent what the sources actually said. You should look again at these edits. You should state why you have made these edits, and why you did not see problems with your edits at the time you made them. Then, you should state how you see these edits today, and if you come to the conclusion that an edit was not legitimate, e.g. because it misrepresented a source, you should state how you intend to avoid similar edits in the future.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I update these pages.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_insurgency , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan and some other articles.All were now protedted and the last edit of mine doesnt remove from those pages because i edit page with a correct refrence eg.In Afghan security fatality page i update the casualities from October 2009- January 2010.No other man update that page except me.And no one remove any of my edit from that page.
I want to update this page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan Their are several things which i want to update and correct but i cant because my my user is blocked and page is semi-protedted.

Anyways can you please tell me how to make new user which will not blocked or can you tell me any other idea to unblock my user.

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).

Gameboy1947 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What should i do to unblock my user.I promise, i will sincarely doesnt violate any wikipedia rules in future.Please unblock my user and give me one chance to proof myself as a good user.

Decline reason:

Your statements on this page do not convince me that you understand the reasons for your block and Wikipedia's relevant principles and policies. Moreover, your command of English does not seem to be good enough to allow you to contribute productively to an English language encyclopedia.  Sandstein  21:56, 21 January 2010 (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.

Do you want to change the name of your account, and if you do so, what username would you like to take?  Cs32en Talk to me  18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my name is violation then i would change my namer from Mujahid1947 to Pakistan1947.Is my new username is normal?How to change my username?
I think the username Pakistan1947 would be O.K. (Pakistan declared independence in 1947.) Please have a look at my comment on Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and try to address the issues I have raised there.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How to change my username?
For the 4th point of your comment in talk page of war in Afghanistan.Before making this account i mean before 25November i edit several articles including war articles, software articles.One day i want to edit a article named insurgency in Kashmir but i cant so i make this user first time.But i use this user a few.But in January 2010, my user blocked but even after blocked i edit those articles without logged in and then Nick-D semi-protect all those articles one by one.So now i want to remove block and unblockk my user by changing my username but tell mme how can i change my username?
First, this account, Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs), would need to be unblocked. I cannot do this, because I am not an administrator, and I would not do it at the moment, because you have only given answers to some of the issues I have raised in my comment on Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present). I think that some administrators who can actually review your block and make a decision on the block are watching this site. If you make a new section on this talk page, and provide your view on the issues I have raised, the chances that your account would be unblocked would be increasing.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do something to ublock my user.Or contact to an administrator and requuest him to unblock my user.My answers of your advice which you posted on talk page of warr in afghanistan is below.Is my unblock appeal (which i write above) is correct?Please help.

For answers of those points which was comment on talk page of war in afghanistan.

1. Ok.If my user will unblock then i edit articles by logged in.I mean i doesnt use ip to edit any article.

2. I doesnt understand what you say in this point.

3. I have already 2nd account named Akhlaque1947.What should i do now?

4. I write my answer above.

5. I dont know why my user blocked?I use this user only a few times.Not much.I made this user in November and it blocked in January.

6. I posted messages on talk page because my those articles which i eit is smi-protedted so i request to other peoples to add the following informnation in this this articles.

7. Done.

Answers of those comments(advice) which you asked on talk page of war in afghanistan

[edit]

For answers of those points which was comment on talk page of war in afghanistan.

1. Ok.If my user will unblock then i edit articles by logged in.I mean i doesnt use ip to edit any article.

2. I doesnt understand what you say in this point.

3. I have already 2nd account named Akhlaque1947.What should i do now?

4. I write my answer above.

5. I dont know why my user blocked?I use this user only a few times.Not much.I made this user in November and it blocked in January.

6. I posted messages on talk page because my those articles which i edit is semi-protected so i request to other peoples to add the following informnation in this this articles.

7. Done.

This is the advice I have given on Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Casualties in Afghanistan.28Update.29

[edit]

(For the record.)

I have been following this for a while. Let me try to explain what you should do:

  1. STOP editing without being logged in! This actually means: At the moment, you can only edit your talk page User talk:Mujahid1947.
  2. Declare that you will not add content to articles that is not based on reliable sources, and that the content you are adding will represent what the sources you are using actually say.
  3. Declare that you will only use one account on Wikipedia, and that you will not edit without being logged in to that account in a deceptive way. If you happen to edit using your IP by mistake, because you have been logged off and did not notice, or forgot to log in, then make an edit with your account to clarify the situtation.
  4. Declare all accounts that you have used on Wikipedia in the past on your user page. It seems that you have edited on Wikipedia before registering your account Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs). If you haven't used any account prior to the account Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs), please state how long you have been editing on Wikipedia without an account (approximately), and name some pages that you have edited during that time. If you have never edited Wikipedia before registering the account Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs), please state that you never did so.
  5. Explain where you think you have made mistakes prior to the block of your account. Describe how you would work in the future to avoid similar mistakes.
  6. If you have misunderstood messages that have been posted to your talk page, or that have been posted to talk pages of articles that you have edited, please explain how and why you have misunderstood them, if possible.
  7. Make these statement on the talk page of User talk:Mujahid1947.

If your statements are convincing, it is possible that your block will be reviewed. I cannot promise anything, however, and will only take a favorable view on your request if your statement really are convincing.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.I will follow all your rules.I can only follow above advice when my user become unblocked.Because during blocked i cant edit anything so i cant follow any of above rules.Please do something to unblock my user.Please.Please.Request to administrator to unblock my user.

  Cs32en Talk to me  21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.I will follow all your rules.I can only follow above advice when my user become unblocked.Because during blocked i cant edit anything so i cant follow any of above rules.Please do something to unblock my user.Please.Please.Request to administrator to unblock my user.

For God sake unblock my user or delete my user

[edit]

{{unblock|For God sake unblock my user.I want to change my usrername but i doesnt know how to do it.I want to change my username to Pakistan1947.If you can change my username then please change my username to Pakistan1947.My english is poor becuase my language is Urdu.I speak Urdu as normal language.Really my head ache start 2 weeks of block.I think edit without user is better than edit with a user.I was edit without user from last 1 year.I make first user, i mean this user in November 2009 which was blcoked 2 weeks before.Please for god sake unblock my user.I hear in news that wikipedia users become decrease.Now i think due to these block system user leave wikipedia.But i doesnt want to leave wikipedia, i love it so please unblock my user.Please.Please.Please.}}

 Question: The username "Pakistan1947" is unavailable (see [1]). Is there another name you would be alright with? -FASTILY (TALK) 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

اگر اپ چاہتے ہیں کہ اپ کو اڈٹ پر اتفاق کے قواعد پر عمل کریں. ایک بڑی حکمرانی نہیں ہے چھیلنا پیٹرولیم کی ایک اور شخص بغیر الفاظ پر اتفاق

Urdu language style is too much difficult to read.I doesnt read some of its words.

Anyways whats about Gameboy1947.

Yes, that is an acceptable and available name. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can i change my username?Where should i go to change my username?In my prefences page i cant change my username.Their is no option their to change username.
You have to put in a request at Wikipedia:Changing username, but you must be unblocked first. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think i trap in this user puzzle.Some people said i bloccked due to my username.I cant unblock so i cant changed my username.Huge puzzle.Thats my fault.Why i make involve in this puzle by making user.I am really angry with me.Any idea how can i get out from this huge puzzle.
User:Fastily looks like he is considering an unblock. If he does this then you can put in the rename. In just a second, I'll put how a request should look like on this page and then you can copy and paste it once you are unblocked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My user still blocked.I am realy upset of all this unblock process.

{{subst:Renameuser|Mujahid1947|Gameboy1947|3=Mujahid is a username violation}} ~~~~

Mujahid1947 → Gameboy1947

[edit]

My user still blocked.I caant change my username unless someone unblocked my user.I also request to change my username below.
The administrator who might make a decision on your request seems to be away from Wikipedia at the moment. Please wait for a while until he returns.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Unblocked per consensus here and on WP:ANI. Sorry this has taken so long.

Request handled by: Fut.Perf. ☼

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I'm just seeing that your account has been unblocked. I'd like to give you two bits of advice:

  • It's probably a good idea not to edit on articles or talk pages of articles until your username has been changed to Gameboy1947.
  • I would suggest that you collect the information on several incidents in the war in Afghanistan, or other conflicts, for some days, and then make an edit that adds all the new information to the relevant article. This way, other editors can understand more easily what you are adding to an article. Try to explain every edit, even updating a single number, with an edit summary, so that other editors understand what the edit is about.

  Cs32en Talk to me  00:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At last impossible thing become possible.After two weeks my user at last unblock.I also request on wikipedia changing username to change my name to gameboy1947.But i think like wikipedia unblock service is low so i think this is also slow.So i edit some pages.Please.

Change my username

[edit]

Mujahid1947 → Gameboy1947

[edit]

A request has been filed for you at WP:CHU. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CIA operatives

[edit]

Please have a look a your recent edit on Coalition casualties in Afghanistan.

  • "Operatives" is not equivalent to "employees", and sources generally agree that seven CIA operatives have been killed.
  • You did not adjust the sum total, i.e. you left the number 11 unchanged.

Please be more careful when editing articles.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i forget to change the total.
If you edit a bit more slowly, you can avoid these types of errors more easily.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No i write correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#British
Actually first time when i edit i forget the total but i again edit and change total.
I write quickly and save edit because their is a huge problem in my city which is load shedding.If during long edditing load shedding occured then all my data lost.And i will angry againt me.
Anyways how to to write the incidents(in which CIA officers killed) in refrence.Actually when i edit that headline.I puzzled, one is her, one is there, one is there.So i think to take those incidents in refrence.Is it good?I also make this page easier.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan .I want to update this page but i cant because of too much puzzled in Estimate headline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 Read above on this talk page.

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

[edit]

I want to make this page easier and i want to edit and some changes which will make this page easier.The article is impossible to read for a normal man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Aggregation_of_estimates But i cant because at starting estimate headline, i cant edit.I mean edit page opens but it start my headche. mean how to start, where i edit.Every refrence there is differnt and in mostly areas n/a, n/a.Please.help.I want to update that page according to this refrence only. http://www.brookings.edu/foreign-policy/%7E/media/Files/Programs/FP/afghanistan%20index/index.pdf

Wikipedia is not a reliable source

[edit]

Please do not replace material cited to reliable sources with claims cited to other Wikipedia articles as you did in this edit. Please see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance on this. Nick-D (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

I have also reverted this series of edits in the List of Coalition aircraft losses in Afghanistan article as it was uncited and this addition to the Coalition casualties in Afghanistan as the killing of people in Pakistan by the Taliban on the suspicion that they were American spies is totally outside of the article's scope (it's unclear whether they were in any way members of the 'Coalition', and they sure weren't 'in Afghanistan'). As a reminder, you were unblocked only after agreeing to abide by the above conditions that you would not add unsourced material or add dubious claims to articles. Your recent additions are clear violations of this commitment. This will be your last warning before you are blocked again. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont angry.I write only those things which i hear in news.Then i search them on google and then i update wikipedia with a refrence.Anyways on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan , you undo my correct update.In Casaualty and losses headline "3 drones" in which 1 from a freiendly fire.http://blogs.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/2009/09/22/robot-airplane-goes-awol-gets-shot-down/ .I update that page, if you have any objection then tell me.

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to 2010s. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Zhang He (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Zhang He (talk): I am following the edits of Gameboy1947 (talk) at the moment. He should have added "more", as the source says "more than 150.000". It's not true that he didn't cite a source for the content, and the mistake was not deliberate. This case does not warrant a level-2 warning, especially as the templated text of the warning does not describe his edits accurately.
To Gameboy1947 (talk): You actually did make a mistake in this edit. Please edit more carefully!  Cs32en Talk to me  15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100124/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_earthquake
150,000 confermed buried which die in Haiti earthquake.
The AP dispatch says "More than 150,000 quake victims have been buried by the government, an official said Sunday." [2] in the text, and the title of the CP dispatch, which you have actually used in the article, is: "More than 150,000 Haiti quake victims buried" [3].  Cs32en Talk to me  17:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for for continuing to add uncited claims despite promising not to as a condition of being unblocked and being warned for this since the unblock. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, I am referring to this edit in which you claimed that 3 drones had been shot down. There were several serious problems with this edit which place you in violation of the conditions of your unblock, namely; 1) none of the references provided contained this figure 2) two of the three references were to the exact same news story concerning the USAF having to shot down an American drone 3) the loss of this drone was over Afghanistan, not Pakistan, and the article didn't state that it was involved in operations over Pakistan so it's not even in the article's scope 4) the story about claims that a drone had been shot down over Pakistan stated that the USAF and CIA had denied that it had lost any drones, so this should have been considered unconfirmed at best rather than a basis for developing a figure of the number of drones lost (which would be uncited original research at best anyway, and in violation of the conditions of your unblock). When you asked to be unblocked you made a commitment that you would not add uncited or dubious claims, and this is a clear violation of that promise. This block will expire in 24 hours, and I hope that you are much more careful about the material you add. If not, you will be blocked for longer periods. Nick-D (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whats mean by Casualty and losses.If you werite only human casualties then remove that losses word from "casualty and losses" because 3 drone shot down is really meanfull.Because 3 driones cost is 30 million $ approx.1 drone cost is 1 million $.As in our country media this news is too muchpopular that a drone shot down in January 24 by local tribesman.In September 2008 a drone shot down by Pakistani army and tribesman.All 3 refrence are correct.As we live in Pakistan and we hear news daily.Then we know that how many drones shot down.Ok.Lets check google or yahoo news.http://www.google.com.pk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=qMB&q=US+drone+shot+down+24+january&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= , http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/pakistan/US-drone-crashes-in-Pak/Article1-501388.aspx , http://www.silobreaker.com/us-drone-crashes-in-pakistan-5_2263183387206352898 , http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/24/world/main6136908.shtml 2nd Drone shot down. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/09/24/us-drone-aircraft-is-shot-down-by-pakistani-troops-115875-20750225/ , http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-09-23-pakistan-drone_N.htm , http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/23/world/main4472666.shtml , 3rd drone shot down by a friendly fire of Allied forces.I see that incident on this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper Watch its refrence no.50.If you doesnt find then i tell you.This link is in refrence no.50.You can conferm it from google, yahoo, or any other big website. http://blogs.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/2009/09/22/robot-airplane-goes-awol-gets-shot-down/ .Any more refrence of news need.
I was also hear a news in 2009 i dotn know date in which a drone shot down by talibans.If i find then i tell you and request you to update that article as your own hands because if i update you answer that my refrence are incorrect or something else.24 January 2010 drone shot doown by local tribesman also write on yahoo.But now i doesnt that link.
Local tribesman, talibans, civilians, and other sources connfermed that drone shot down.
And droens attacks in Pakistan is not under CIA.That is under US air force.
Before editing that page 2nd time i also talk on this page to you.As now-a-days this news become too much popular thjat a drone shot down and approx. all media channels tell us histroy of drone and how much drone shot s\down in Pakistan.4 Drones shot down in Pakistan.1 in 2008, 2 in 2009 and 1 in 2010.
The issue is that you are adding material to articles which is not supported by the citations you provide. This is one of the reasons behind your original block, you agreed not to do this when you asked to be unblocked, you were warned by myself and User:Zhang He for it yesterday and yet you continued adding claims not supported by any citation and which do not appear to even be within the scope of the article. The solution is really simple: do not add any material to any article which is not specifically supported by a reliable source. On the same topic, if you want to add total numbers of casualties to articles you need to provide a single reference which supports that total rather than add it up yourself from your own interpretation of news stories. Please take the time to review the Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research - it is your responsibility to understand and abide by these policies. Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours

[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for continuing to add uncited claims in violation of a promise to not do so. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I am referring to this edit and this edit where you added figures for the total number of casualties and combatants without any supporting citation. Once again, you gave a commitment not to add uncited information when you asked to be unblocked and have been specifically warned against adding up your own totals of casualties since your block was lifted. You will continue to be blocked for ever-increasing periods if you continue this behavior once this block expires. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the various unsourced totals from the article. Gameboy1947 (talk · contribs) effectively has updated content that was already unsourced before. We are giving a bad example if we leave the unsourced stuff in the article, but are blocking a user for long periods for just updating it. In large areas of Wikipedia, unsourced content for claims that seem to be rather uncontroversial is effectively tolerated (although the policy is of course that numbers should always be cited). This is no reason to tolerate such content in the articles on the War in Afghanistan, but I could support blocks for "ever-increasing periods" only if we remove the unsourced content from the article and Gameboy1947 (talk · contribs) would reinsert that content afterwards, or would persistently add other unsourced content. I'll support shorter blocks on Gameboy1947 (talk · contribs) for not following advice based on pertinent policies and guidelines, however, even if his edits would just update (i.e. not add) unsourced content.  Cs32en Talk to me  07:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commitments made when asking for indefinite blocks to be lifted are taken very seriously. This is a continuation of the behavior which contributed this editor's indefinite block and the recent 24 hour block. Some other admins would have reapplied the indefinite block the first time the commitment was broken, rather than have given a warning and then two relatively short blocks like I've tried here. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most other users would not have been indefinitely blocked for the edits that Gameboy1947 (talk · contribs), then Mujahid1947, has made. I'm not sure whether he saw his most recent edits as violating his commitments. We need to take into account that he changed content that was already unsourced before, and has not been contested for months, maybe years. So he might well have thought that the inclusion of this content would be acceptable. I think that by removing the unsourced content, the ambiguity of the situation has now been eliminated, so that we can make more informed decisions on how to sanction violations of policies and guidelines in the future. I'm not disputing your block here, I just think that increasing blocks are unwarranted unless Gameboy1947 makes repeated edits in bad faith, or makes, out of ignorance, repeated edits that seriously violate policies and guidelines (misrepresenting sources to advance a certain POV, for example).  Cs32en Talk to me  08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both update (which block my user again) are correct and boths updates i hear on media chennals.Like first one i hear in news that 4 Afghan policemen killed near checkpoint.So i search o google and find it on bbc.And it also add icasualties (news) http://paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?223904 .Then i update the police casualty in 2010 from 22 to 27 because 22+4=27.
Why someone one move overall year casualties.Please dont remove overall year casuaalties.It is not add by me, it was add by someone else.I only update it.
2nd edit, i alsdo hear in news that America remove the names of taliban leaderss from most wanted list.Then media chennals tell us strength all all about talibans.They say that Afghan taliban strength is 33,000-35,000.So i search this on google and then after search i refrence that link to the War in Afghanistan.
I think Nick-D block my user again ansd again without any perfect reason.Like in previous reason for bock is that i update this article with correct refrence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan I update the Casualty and losses section 3 drones shot down 1 in September 2008, 2nd in September 2009 by a freiendly fire, 3rd shot down on 24 January 2010.I give the news refrence and tell them the correct date when drone shot down.On 24 January, our media tell us that 5 drones shot down from 2008-Present.But i find on internet only 3 sdrones shot down.Before i search on google for others 2 drones shot down, my user blocked.After unblock i doesnt edit or update that article again.But that update which i write before my blocking is totally correct otherwise remove the losses word from "Casualty and losses" because casualty means human casualty whereas losses means loss.3 Drones shot down meansd loss of 30 mill $.
Please request to Nick-D that first warnn or tell my mistaks so i explain then block.Block is always after 3 times of warning.
There is no requirement that editors be warned before each block, particularly when they're continuing behavior for which they have previously been warned and blocked. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But warning is much better than block without warning.If you blocked a user without warning then user become angry because no one read those several pages containing rules and regulations.If you block a user after 3 warning then that user also think that its my fault that i again write that wrong information.If you are still doesnt warn a user befoire blocking then conider your own user blocked by another user without warning.Whats your reaction?
As you made a commitment to not add unreferenced or missleading material when you asked to be unblocked you shouldn't need to be warned, and warnings are not common when editors repeat behavior they've been blocked for. All editors have a responsibility to abide by the various policies you've been provided with links to above. You've been doing well in the last few days though - keep it up. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours again

[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for For continuing to add uncited claims in this series of edits despite a promise to not do so and multiple previous warnings and blocks. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I initially set this block as 72 hours, but have reduced it to 24 hours in recognition of your productive editing since the last block expired. Again, please take this time to review the above policies - they are not optional, and you have committed to abide by them. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir

[edit]

Please not when adding info about events in Indian occupied Kashmir please reffer to Jammu and Kashmir which is controlled by India as Indian-administered Kashmir instead of Indian kashmir as india controlls/administrates the region stating that events occured in "Indian Kashmir" implys India has rightful soveriegnty over the region which it does not thanks 86.153.128.139 (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy first sentence of news and paste on that article.Anyways ok.from now i write correct.

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

[edit]

It's pretty common practice to revert unexplained deletions. In a high profile article like this one, you need to be very careful about deletions if you want them to stick. This means explaining why you are deleting them in the edit summary, and if it's especially controversial, a comment on the talk page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I write explanation on your talk page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AzureFury
And also on war in afghanistan talk page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
Right, AFTER you made the edit. Now that you've explained them, I won't revert again. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jash-e-Mohammadi and Hizbul Mujaheddin only and onlyfight against indian military in indian administrated Kashmir.All three groups doesnt support or help to talibans.You can read articles on all three groups.Articles also tells that all three groups only and only fight against indian military in indian administrated kashmir.

Blocked for an indefinite period

[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding false claims to articles and widespread copyright violations. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In particular:

    • In this edit and this edit you added claims that "A joint Afghan-NATO force mistakely killed innocent people" when the source provided explicitly states that who killed the people is unknown and an investigation is being held. When you asked to be unblocked you made a commitment to not add incorrect or unsourced claims, but yet you have regularly violated this agreement, despite repeated warnings and short blocks.
    • Moreover, as you admitted in this edit you have been copying and pasting text from sources protected by copyright into Wikipedia. From my initial skim of your edits, this appears to have been taking place on a very widespread scale. This represents a significant copyright violation and your editing privileges are revoked while this issue is resolved per WP:COPYVIO. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry.I just write mistakely.This is original statement.
A joint Afghan-NATO force killed several insurgents during a raid on a compound where troops discovered the bodies of two men and two bound and gagged women, NATO said Friday. Family members accused U.S. soldiers of killing innocent civilians.
I just write Nato and Afghan forces mistakely kill 5 peoples.Whats wrong.And what is this word "copyright" means???.I read this word from several websites, books, games and softwares.
Anyways from now, i really promise i write only those words which are writetten in the news.
Why you just block my user.Why you always watching monly my activities?
Blocking for infinite time takes several weeks for unblock.
I think you want to block my user for always.Becuase one mistake block, for one day, 2nd mistake even after telling you on your talk page block me for 3 days.And 3rd mistake block for indifinate period.What you want from me?
For God sake, forgive me.Form now i care extremely too much.But if any mistake occured.Then for God sake.Just tell me, and dont block my user.Please.Please.Please.Be mercy.
I am not expert in wikipedia editing.I update a page by edit it hundreds times because everytime i missed something.Then i again edit and add that missed thing.

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

Gameboy1947 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My user blocked because i slightly change a sentence which i as own write.I really apologise and say sorry.Next time i doesnt change any sentense from news.I will write only those things which are written in news.Please accept my sorry and unblock my user.

Decline reason:

We're not looking for an apology, we're looking for some sign from you that you understand why you are blocked and will be able to avoid repeating these problematic behaviors in the future. If you are unable to understand why you are blocked we won't be able accept your request. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    • understand what you have been blocked for,
    • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2010 (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.

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

Gameboy1947 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologise the violation of copyright.I am sorry.Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

This doesn't make it clear that you understand what copyright is. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 13 February 2010 (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.

To the reviewing admin; I've opened a discussion of how to handle this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Advice on widespread copyright violations and am still awaiting a response there on whether mass reversions are necessary. Given the scale of this editor's violations (the majority of their many articlespace edits appear to be copyvios), their above statement that they don't know what copyright is and their failure to abide by the commitments they made as a condition of having their previous indef block lifted, I would strongly suggest that this block not be lifted. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I talk to my cousion about this word copyright.He explain to me about this word and now i know what is copyright, what its mean.Anyways why you are just watching my activities.Even you also block my user because i violate the copyright rules first time.Then what?Have you write correct sentence on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan I think you doesnt write anything on that page.As you just watching only and only my activities and find as small mistake as possible to block my user.Please stop this.Your activities against me is also a violation of user rights.
I have not often seen a user who has been blocked as many times as you have. Most people either learn and follow the rules after their first block, or they are indefinitely blocked as their second or third block. I would not support unblocking this account even if you did understand copyright, because, as I look through your talk page, it seems that you're simply not able to follow Wikipedia's rules in general. But, just in case some other administrator wants to give you a chance: saying "now i know what is copyright" does not show that you understand copyright. No one will believe that you understand copyright until you explain the copyright rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways i just make a sentense as small as possible so i change the sentence and compress it to a few words than a paragraph.Is it right or wrong?If i write only paragraphs then no body can read and no body understand whats written in paragraph.Like in this edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29&diff=prev&oldid=343415345 which has now removed.Anyways the sentense which i write is too much easy to understand for everyone from any country.I just change the refrence from bbc to any other news website.And update the casualty.
Copyright means that these words are safe and no one change.Otherwise this is violation or illigal.This is my own made defination.My cousion said that on all books copyrights is written.He tells that If you hange some sentence or words from a book and advertise the changed book.Then you violate the copyright rules and the punisment is maybe Jail.
So now i will follow copyright rules.
Anyways mostly my user blocked by Nick-D.No other one block my user.Other people undo my edits or change my edits.If i talk to them they reply.But now-a-days Nick-D doesnt reply.One week ago i talk to Nick-D on his page and tell him that i add the Afghan security forces in this page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan He doesnt reply.I add the figure.And i also write as of below counts.But when he see that i write the numbers.He become happy and saying a chance to block Gameboy1947 user.He block my user fastely.
Actually i edit update the casualty figure of 2010.Because all Afghan security forces casualty in 2010 is written by me and i know the total casualty in 2010 as according to figures.I say this to Nick-D but he doesnt respose and no reply.That page is from December only updated by me.

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

Gameboy1947 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock my user.Mercy is better than punishment and giving chance is a postive activity. I apopogise the violation of copyrights.Please unblock my user.Please.As user Nick-D always watching my activities and he block my user before any warning.I edit too much careflly.But sometimes i mistakely violate copyright rules.And then Nick-D dont do anything on that page where i violate the copyright.He just block my user with any warning.5 months before when i have no user, if i edit some wrong thing then first several times warning and then block for a short time.But when i made this user.I blcoked several times with my small mistakes.Mostly from Nick-d.Anyways please forgive me and mercy on me and give me one more chance.

Decline reason:

One instance of this, I might be able to understand. But five times in the last month? That alone would make me uncomfortable unblocking you, but your contribution history indicates a wanton disregard for copyright. You don't seem to realize that this is something that can literally get Wikipedia sued out of existence. Block upheld and talk page disabled. Blueboy96 14:22, 13 February 2010 (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.

[edit]

This editor is continuing to evade their block and post copyright violations. They edit from 119.x and 116.x ranges and have posted copyright violations such as this. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has now moved to the 221.120.250.x range and is continuing to try to evade their block as demonstrated by this talk page comment Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of part of a news story being copied and pasted by this guy after their block (8 June 2010). Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gameboy1947&oldid=1257923304"