User talk:Hassan Guy

Welcome!
Hello, Hassan Guy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as File:NRIET KLJ-7A AESA Radar.jpg, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Majora (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

December 2016
Hello, I'm Gluons12. I noticed that in this edit to Type 039A submarine, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gluons12 ☢&#124;☕ 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that you said that there has been no confirmation that the information in the article is true. However, this doesn't mean that the content can't be on Wikipedia. Even if it isn't true, there are reliable sources which say that it is, and that is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. This essay might be helpful: WP:Verifiability, not truth. If you still think this shouldn't be included, you should probably seek consensus on the article's talk page. Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 19:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. 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 Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Hannibal Smith  ❯❯❯  19:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Type 039A submarine, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 13:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Type 039A submarine, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 14:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kalvari-class submarine. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 14:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Pakistan Navy SSP programme. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 09:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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 why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you return to your aggressive edit warring and improper removal of maintenance tags your next block will be longer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Pakistan Navy SSP programme. ''You have been warned many times already. Stop removing maintenance templates, or you will be blocked.'' &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Your Disruptive Editing
You have been blocked twice for disruptive editing. Please stop. Do not make controversial edits, including addition of unsourced or removal of sourced material from articles without talk page consensus. You are very close to getting a long term block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

 * This is your 3rd block in a relatively short period of time, for the same behavior. And no, removing maintenance tags w/o discussion or explanation is not a constructive edit, as you have been told repeatedly. If I have to do this again, I am likely going to either block you indefinitely or Topic Ban you from articles dealing with the Pakistani and/or Indian armed forces. I need to remind you that any and all articles dealing with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan are subject to Discretionary Sanctions per this ARBCOM decision. I again urge you to consider whether or not you want to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia or continue in your pattern of disruptive editing. The choice is yours, for now. As I am WP:INVOLVED I will let another Admin review your request to be unblocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like this editor is block evading under and  now. Can you take a look and do what needs to be done? Thanks. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 09:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion and disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Update
It is not the case you have been blocked for more than 6 months. We also believe you engaged in block evasion just two months ago. --Yamla (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If given the chance, I can show that i've changed in a trial period I can prove myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan Guy (talk • contribs)