Bookishness
|
☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks, User:Loriendrew! :) --Bookishness (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot
editHi Bookishness! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
- Thanks, Bot. --Bookishness (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
edit Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Quartiere Campo dei Fiori may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- The Villaggio Campo dei Fiori was built in 1919 by the Social Housing Institute (IACP)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aler.mi.it/interne.aspx?codice=3 |title=ALER</ref> in response to the
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
partition of india
editThe article has an inuse tag, please don't edit until I'm done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, User:Fowler&fowler. I did not notice it. I will bear that in mind. :) --Bookishness (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wish to point out that you are presenting a Pakistani Muslim point-of-view, which is clearly visible in your calling Direct Action Day a day hoped by Muslim League to be peaceful when it is a well-established fact that it was designed to be a violent and in Jinnah's words "unconstitutional" "war".--Bookishness (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Partition of India. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. SMS Talk 02:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Unjustified blocking
editBookishness (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet of any user. Pakistani revert editors, in particular, User:Smsarmad a renowned edit warrior and master puppeteer[1] himself wishes to make no contributions to articles and reverts and starts fishing for whoever he disagrees with, for sockpuppetry. He is prone to promoting Pakistani POV, such as here [2], reverting significant referenced content with a pithy "per WP:NPOV" edit summary here [3] and using personal attacks, such as here [4]. It is clear that other Pakistani editors like User:Darkness Shines are in cahoot with him and make vulgar remarks[5] on the Wikipedia when good-intentioned admins do not yield to their agenda. Pakistani editors are consistently removing well-referenced content. I urge the administrators (other than User:Elockid) to maintain neutrality on the Wikipedia and not let partisan groups dominate an article like the Partition of India.
Decline reason:
SPI report shows fairly clear evidence of socking. Any further appeals should be made from the primary account regentspark (comment) 01:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
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.