User talk:Haskanik

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to National Express West Midlands, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: National Express West Midlands was changed by Haskanik (u) (t) deleting 9071 characters on 2009-04-02T02:14:36+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Woogee (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Midland Metro. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. NJA (t/ c)  08:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC 6 Music
Hi Haskanik The changes you've made to BBC 6 Music seem much too dramatic to be justifiable without discussion and certainly go well beyond your stated rationale of "readability". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair Stevenson (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Plaese use edit summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Green Bus
Hi Haskanik, The changes you made to The Green Bus seem too drastic and unfair. The article was written from a fairly neutral POV, and didn't need to be as heavily edited as you did. However, I will now make some changes to make it more neutral and less advertorial. RichardD 01 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

HS2
Hello. Please see Talk:High_Speed_2 - I think you could have most of a point - of all the changes I made to the article I think the one you mention may have removed a little too much - I've made a suggestion on the talk page about putting the capacity numbers in a note, as well as possible problems I see with the way it was written before. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

High speed 2
Hasanik, please don't throw a hissy fit on the article, see WP:POINT.

I will correct and clarify two point which I can do. Other things need a slower approach. I am not your enemy.

The statement about european structure gauge is reference, here section 8.4 - European structure gauge refers to one of the structure gauges set out in the EU technical standards for interoperability as first set out in the EU Directive 96/48/EC.

I;ve changed the other to "a british loading" gauge which should be not problematic, and if any confusion exists the article loading gauge helps explain.

As for the information about "Mr. Hammond" please feel free to replace it.

As for the change to the rationale section - I did not deleted it, but another editor removed a lot as wp;or this - I attempted to fix that with an additional reference and rewrite. see Talk:High_Speed_2.

Please discuss there.

If you want more clarification about the structure or loading gauges to be put in the article please ask. 83.100.225.242 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

stop
And please don't revert especially after I've attempted to talk to you and already tried fix some of the issues you raised in intermediate edits. 83.100.225.242 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

High speed 2 - topic ban
Please read Talk:High_Speed_2 - if you are going to not help and spend you time pointing out spelling errors etc then I will be recommending you for a topic ban on the High Speed 2 page. Currently you are being disruptive.83.100.225.242 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Civility re Talk:High Speed 2
With regards to your recent comments at Talk:High Speed 2, you might wish to review Civility. I think it is a little disrespectful towards other editors to state that you don't think that "most of the currently active editors have the writing ability, or editorial judgment, required to make this anything other than a deeply flawed article". Adambro (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, I don't comment on the crud that's dropped on this page. Perhaps I should, in case people think I've done something wrong.


 * In re Talk:High Speed 2, I stand by my comments (regrettably), and I stand by my edits (proudly). Unlike some contributors, I don't rush to conclusions.


 * I can't see how my comments would breach Civility. What's remarkable is that some of the worst behaviour, and poorest editing, is coming from people with elevated privileges.


 * For example, in the space of a few hours, a reviewer calls someone else an idiot, starts an edit war, and then puts an edit-war warning on this page, but not his own.
 * Haskanik (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Haskanik, 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)