User talk:Cityvalyu: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:43, 12 September 2008

if you delete referenced material, i shall persist to revert the uncontested truth till you can justify your actions...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityvalyu (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 April 2008

talk page comments

Hi. Please try to desist from posting phony warnings at other people's talk pages. I have (to my knowledge) not violated 3RR, I have not 'experimented', the moves of the Azad Kashmir were by no means 'test moves' and someone stating 'i shall persist to revert the uncontested truth' cannot really lecture others on not doing reverts. --Soman (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this guy is a joke keep on editing freind and ill keep on reverting you have no bases for your claims or should i say rants about maps the map of jammu and kashmir only shows india without any labels of neighbours you indians dont control wikipedia so get a grip and stop your vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.237.192 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the above user is known for abuse..this is the only talk page entry in his/her talk page:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Azad Kashmir. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shovon (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Northern Areas (Pakistan). If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shovon (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..so wiki users can judge further..117.193.34.132 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking

I see that you have removed the redirect to Azad Kashmir. If you disagree with the contents of that article you should not be creating POV forks on the topic. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. Pahari Sahib 01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

his contention disproved and the article was retained after an afd disdcussion..present title of pok article is pakistan administered kashmir..Cityvalyu (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate your efforts

		The India Star
		for your contribution in preventing vandalism in POKarticle and for contributing neutral views to discussions on india relevant articles like Amarnath land transfer controversy Kashmircloud (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Kober^Talk 09:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hypocrisy..please have a look at his 4 reverts within 24 hours in abkhazia edit summary history page on 4th september,2008..dear georgian, practise what you preach ...in any case i have not violated any rule as evidenced by lack of proof...Cityvalyu (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"OR"

Hi,

Please don't use the excuse that you're removing "original research" whenever you change something you don't like in an article. I've noticed you doing this a couple times, as when you removed the "outcry in the West" statement from International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia ostensibly for that reason. The second reason you gave in that case, that the statement was unbalanced without what used to follow, was reasonable. (In fact, I had just made the same edit, only to find that you beat me to it, and I agree with you completely.) However, by misrepresenting it as OR when it clearly is not (the outcry in the West is blatantly obvious), you run the risk of people thinking you're unreliable or perhaps even dishonest when you edit, and may make editing more difficult for all of us. kwami (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colors aside, I suggest to take a look at Wikipedia:OR for how the term is used here on Wikipedia. kwami (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you're edit warring on this article, and have already racked up 3RR just on this one point, it's rather hypocritical of you to warn me about 3RR. kwami (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I find it rather amusing how I'm either "pro-Russian" or "anti-Russian" depending on the biases of other editors. kwami (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're also abusing the term "consensus" the way you abuse "original research". You ask me to assume good faith, and at first I did—but now I'm starting to doubt that it's the case. Good-faith editors don't need to misrepresent their edits or their reasons. kwami (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool down, i am not even russian..you misquoted the references cited without consensus..your edits simply do not fall under "consensus"..simple!! i merely tried to restore the most stable version accepted by other dozens of users till then..Cityvalyu (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

responses

you had asked me to respond to something some time ago. i forget which article it was for. What did you want me to respond to? Lihaas (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edits related to turning a blind eye(motives??) to user:kober's 3rr violations

Your recent edits on Abkhazia constitute edit warring, you've violated WP:3RR yourself while reporting other users for the same. Unless you modify your approach and try to work with the other editors of that page, you'll be blocked the next time you engage in similar behavior. henrik•talk 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

show me the proof mr. liar nato stooge..Cityvalyu (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain skills which are good to have when editing contentious wikipedia articles. Among those is an understanding that calling your fellow editors names is usually not helpful. Unfortunately not everybody has the right temperament to work in contentious areas, and will sooner or later either change their ways or be ejected from the wikipedia community. I can concede that there are in many cases a western bias to wikipedia (Our coverage of Africa is very poor for example), but if you wish to change that on Abkhazia you'll first need to understand how to be productive in a heated environment and learn how to contribute light rather than heat to the discussion. The proof is in the history of Abkhazia, but certain problematic diffs are as follows:[1][2][3][4] where you inserted material, then partially reverted their removal in several different edits. henrik•talk 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comical to conclude that three non identical edits is violating wiki when user:kober, a georgian (nato prodigy) made 4 edits within 24 hours and not a single user including Gb had the spine to disprove the proof on display..nor could anyone gather their conscience to act just !! Gb seems to lack the abilities to condemn kober's violation of 3rr while selectively targetting me although no one reported me and i too have not ignored any intimation to me on that article (unlike him--USERS CAN JUDGE Gb'S DOUBLE STANDARDS AND LACK OF INTEGRITY IN APPLYING HIS POWERS UNIFORMLY!!!

Further to the above, and your antagonistic comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, including questioning my integrity, please consider this your last chance. Calling people "Mr. Liar Nato Stooge" is a breach of our policies on personal attacks. I suggest you tone down your approach, considerably, if you wish to continue editing here. _Gb^T/c 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

does wiki policy favour letting unrepentant contemptuous violators to go scot free?? does wiki policy favour administrator supporting brazen 3rr violators?? does it favour eloquent administrators turning a blind eye "selectively" (motives??integrity??) to violators like kober??..you have shameful double standards and lack integrity to say the least(you didnt even write a single letter to condemn kober's brazen behaviour!!!)..hence, i shall ignore you henceforth as your character deserves that (still i have no hatred for the life within your body..as per gandhian strictness)..thats the best punishment that "dharma" should give to "adharma"..you can do what you want by abusing your powers or acting selectively blind..i care least...i dare you to act further..Cityvalyu (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning:Your behaviour is increasingly bordering on the blockable, including the personal attacks too numerous to mention in this little gem. I suggest that you considerably improve your approach, failing which you will inevitably be blocked for persistently failing to maintain a proper standard of decorum when dealing with other editors. Incidentally, talk pages are for communicating with other users, not for keeping deleted versions of articles. _Gb^T/c 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the following edit still is relevant :does wiki policy favour letting unrepentant contemptuous violators to go scot free?? does wiki policy favour administrator supporting brazen 3rr violators?? does it favour eloquent administrators turning a blind eye "selectively" (motives??integrity??) to violators like kober??..you have shameful double standards and lack integrity to say the least(you didnt even write a single letter to condemn kober's brazen behaviour!!!)..hence, i shall ignore you henceforth as your character deserves that (still i have no hatred for the life within your body..as per gandhian strictness)..thats the best punishment that "dharma" should give to "adharma"..you can do what you want by abusing your powers or acting selectively blind..i care least...i dare you to act further..Cityvalyu (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC) ..no more replies needed to _Gb Cityvalyu (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

format , racist favours discussion

Your 3RR report was not in the usual format, Cityvalu. I often help people format 3RR reports. If you would like help formatting a report, feel free to ask me, and if I'm not too busy and if I think a report is warranted I'll likely help you. For a good example of a well-formatted report, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:82.20.235.102 reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours). For how to make diff links, see Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide. By the way, re your comment on 4 September the best way to AGF and not call someone racist is to say nothing about it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i shall try a better report next time..racism is everywhere(overt or subtle)..racist "discrimination" is obvously bad(you would agree with me, i guess)..but the sort of racist "favour" (that pro-western whites get) goes unnoticed..if i had done the same thing as user:kober, i would have been blocked for minimal 24 hours-that is wikipedia's policy(this time i didnt mention racist policy;) lol since wiki can't be blamed for the many of the administrator's indulgence !!!!Cityvalyu (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what race you are, and it seems a likely possibility to me that Stifle neither knows nor cares what race you are. Sometimes people are blocked for editwarring even if they didn't violate 3RR, and sometimes people are not blocked even though they did violate 3RR. Administrators take a number of things into account in making those decisions: one of them is civility. For example whether the person has been saying things like "i didnt mention racist policy". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POK

this article has been posted for deletion..i have made the following appeal there:

do not delete : PLEASE allow editing to take place in this article so that it gets balanced; disabling editing and then crying unbalanced is hypocrisy!!!..As we all know we didn't delete european union article just because there was an "england" article or "france" article or "germany" article (which are part of EU nevertheless) ... Similarly we did not destroy soviet union article just because it is divided into 15 parts..Further it is very very clear that POK is not the same as azad k as pok also includes trans karakoram tract, gilgit and baltistan (from 1947 till now)...pok term is used by most if not all non pakistan media.so ip and soman contention invalid.. i think it is not "fork" since contents are not identical, verifiable, has reliable sources and differs from the other articles like "trans-Karakoram tract" or "Northern Areas" (at the maximum, there is a passing reference in the summary(if this is considered fork) style with redirect links to sub regions).So, i am opposing this high handed move based on ignorance..rather i suggest that those who suggest it as non neutral contribute towards making this neutral, if it is not already neutral..pahari sahib's contention of inflammatory not substantiated both in talk page of pok or otherwise..so DO NOT DELETEKashmircloud (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you can improve this article or if you believe that the article can be improved by removing the edit ban(say, exampple: semiprotect) and if you also concur that pok not equal to ajk, please help in saving this article from deleters with nationalistic (pakistani)/ religious(islamist?) motives for POK article removal(example: User:paharisahib is pakistani)..please save the POKarticle...Kashmircloud (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am not administrator!!anyway, let me see if time permitsCityvalyu (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

He's the banned user Nangparbat (talk · contribs). The problem is that he has dynamic IPs, making it extremly difficult to enforce a block. Hersfold has been on him for some time, see User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat. --Soman (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think this Nangparbat (talk · contribs) guy, is back..see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&diff=237972231&oldid=237873266..very likely that he is the same guy who hates india..Cityvalyu (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you hate pakistan so whats the difference ? 81.151.101.146 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i love pakistan but i hate the liars, intolerant fundamentalists, terrorists and vandals(like you, user:nangparbat) polluting that great nation's image worldwide..that is the differenceCityvalyu (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think im a terrorist seems to me your the Pro indian and anti pakistani alright this wont go down well with administraters freind bye bye now 81.151.101.146 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i can't help you if you consider yourself a terrorist! further i don't know if you are a terrorist(how can i know that!!!)!! but i KNOW YOU ARE A VANDAL..my reply was in reply to the context of your accusation of "hate"..read above reply properly again...if you read newspapers or visit news pages on net, you will realise what i wrote..Cityvalyu (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, his IP range is widely shared by most of the United Kingdom, and as you've seen he hops around rather a lot. A rangeblock wouldn't do much good and would block many innocent users. I'll block all the recently active IP addresses, but I'm afraid that's all I can do aside from semi-protect your user talk page if you'd like. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP editor known as Nangparbat: I am leaving this message here as leaving a note on an IP talk page for you would do very little good based on your IP hopping. Cityvalyu is welcome to remove it at any time. You (Nangparbat) are banned from the English Wikipedia for repeated block evasion, persistent and severe personal attacks, and general disruption to the project. All edits that can be attributed to you will be reverted on sight according to the banning policy. Further disruption will lead to an attempt to contact your Internet Service Provider in an effort to curtail your abuse. Stop now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip

Just providing a tip: If you wish to keep a copy of the deleted article, you can create User:Cityvalyu/Pakistan occupied Kashmir, for instance. __meco (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for tip..Cityvalyu (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 ::::So you think im a terrorist seems to me your the Pro indian and anti pakistani alright this wont go down well with administraters freind bye bye now [[Special:Contributions/81.151.101.146|81.151.101.146]] ([[User talk:81.151.101.146|talk]]) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 :::::i can't help you if you consider yourself a terrorist! further i don't know if you are a terrorist(how can i know that!!!)!! but i KNOW YOU ARE A VANDAL..my reply was in reply to the context of your accusation of "hate"..read above reply properly again...if you read newspapers or visit news pages on net, you will realise what i wrote..[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu#top|talk]]) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
+:Unfortunately, his IP range is widely shared by most of the United Kingdom, and as you've seen he hops around rather a lot. A rangeblock wouldn't do much good and would block many innocent users. I'll block all the recently active IP addresses, but I'm afraid that's all I can do aside from semi-protect your user talk page if you'd like. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
+:'''To the IP editor known as Nangparbat:''' I am leaving this message here as leaving a note on an IP talk page for you would do very little good based on your IP hopping. Cityvalyu is welcome to remove it at any time. You (Nangparbat) are banned from the English Wikipedia for repeated block evasion, persistent and severe personal attacks, and general disruption to the project. All edits that can be attributed to you will be reverted on sight according to the [[WP:BAN|banning policy]]. Further disruption will lead to an attempt to contact your Internet Service Provider in an effort to curtail your abuse. Stop now. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 ==Tip==