User talk:PAKHIGHWAY/Archive 18

Ridiculous nonsense!

 * Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
I would note here that an appeal after not less than 3 months of harmonious editing elsewhere, is likely to succeed. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * JzG, Yamla's proposal was a topic ban on India/Pakistan articles that overlap (that's what I read it as anyway). Articles that are related to either India or Pakistan is rather broad, especially considering the useful work PAKHIGHWAY does on Pakistan related articles. I think it is worth reconsidering the scope of the ban but also, regardless of whether we stick to the broader one, Pakhighway might have thought that the narrower interpretation applied because I don't see any cross-border edits from him after the ban. --regentspark (comment) 00:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just said pretty much the same thing on JzG's talk page. I think there may be an unfortunate misunderstanding here. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the point, and I think it is valid. Let me consider for a moment how to modify the sanction. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

this sanction is amended: your topic ban covers articles at the intersection of India and Pakistan, allowing uncontroversial edits to Pakistan. You are strongly discouraged from editing articles on India. Articles relating to India-Pakistan relations or politics are in scope, i.e. you are banned from those articles. As before this is for one year with the expectation that an appeal after not less than three months is likely to succeed if you have edited harmoniously for that time. I trust all concerned consider this equitable. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Amended
 * Thanks Guy. It sounds right. PAKHIGHWAY, since this is a fuzzy scope, please tread carefully if an experienced editor tells you that some article is in the scope of the topic ban. If you disagree, please consult an administrator. Not heeding warnings might lead to blocks. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems better than what I was expecting. Best of luck! Excelse (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for your help. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for continuing to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did at 2018 Kabul ambulance bombing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. S warm  ♠  00:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. It could be argued that your edit was a breach of the topic ban, and it could be argued that it wasn't; the scope of the topic ban is a little vague as it relates to these edits. However, the spirit of the topic ban was clear: the community wanted to sanction you for nationalistic editing, and the ban was meant to prevent contentious editing like this. It has already been determined that your personal bias is problematic, and making these kinds of edits immediately after you get your AE topic ban narrowed in scope is not good. The topic ban was narrowed based on the assumption that you could be trusted to edit positively in uncontroversial areas. These edits appear to be gaming the ban in order to continue nationalistic edits. I don't see any way of interpreting those edits otherwise. If there are further issues, the ban may need to be expanded again. S warm   ♠  01:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be even more clear, this is not an AE block, but it is a disruptive editing and POV block. S warm   ♠  01:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Swarm, are these the edits that the block was for? – Uanfala (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is correct. S warm   ♠  02:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the edits replaced the word "blamed" with "accused", the other unlinked a phrase without modifying the text. Pakhighway hasn't made any other edits to this article and these edits weren't reverted or challenged. I'm finding it that I need a leap of the imagination to perceive that as an instance of disruption. – Uanfala (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a community consensus that nationalist bias is a problem with this editor, and an according topic ban. You'd have to be blind not to see how that obviously comes into play in those edits. Your attempts to undermine the clear community mandate for sanctions against this user are self-evident on Guy's talk page. PAKHIGHWAY has the right to appeal the block and have it reviewed, but I don't think you yourself appear to be a particularly unbiased observer. WP:DE details ignoring community input as an example of disruptive editing, that's how that policy comes into play. S warm   ♠  02:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Punjabi wedding songs


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Punjabi wedding songs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. IM3847 (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Punjabi wedding


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Punjabi wedding requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. IM3847 (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

EXPLAIN
Please explain about how this edit is not a clear-cut violation of your T-ban? Thanks! ~ Winged Blades Godric 12:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, sheesh, PAKHIGHWAY. You've got to leave that sort of thing alone. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If the Indian administrative units article makes no mention of any dispute, why should the Pakistani article? If Wikipedia is about fairness, then be fair. Both articles should mention the dispute or none should. Since I can't touch Indian articles, I edited the Pakistani article. If administrative units of India mention tne dispute, I'll happily revert my edits. -PAKHIGHWAY (talk)


 * Whether you are right or wrong about the factual part of it, you need to leave it to someone whose judgement is trusted on such matters. That someone isn't you and the more you keep doing things like this, the less chance there is that any appeal would be successful. In fact, you could find your ban extended. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense.You evaded my question and the reply couldn't have been worse.It's exactly the same reasons, as cast out in your reply i.e a fundamental non-compliance with NPOV coupled with nationalistic agenda that led to the imposition of T-Ban. ~ Winged Blades Godric 12:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, Administrative units of India is a red-link. ~ Winged Blades Godric 12:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, see note 1 at Azad Kashmir.And, I could add more. ~ Winged Blades Godric 12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't understand note 1. Also the article is Administrative divisions of India. And how did I evade your question? -PAKHIGHWAY (talk)


 * So if I'm editing an article as a whole I should just ignore the Indian POV is what you're saying indirectly? Unacceptable. I was editing the entire article of Administrative units of Pakistan. I only made that edit when I viewed the Indian article right at the end. Didn't realise disputes of JK only concerned Pak administered regions. Anyhow, I've started a discussion on the Administrative divisions of India talk page since my edits were reverted on the Pakistani article. Fair is fair. -PAKHIGHWAY (talk)


 * No, you should not be engaging in such discussions. Talk page are covered by the ban also. I'm sorry because I know you can contribute much that is useful but this is going to end very badly for you. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's settle the issue on hand here. JK is disputed. I wouldn't have made that edit if the Indian article also mentioned a dispute. Why does the Administrative Divisions of India make no mention of a dispute? And if it doesn't, why don't you add it and lets be done with this discussion. -PAKHIGHWAY (talk)


 * I am not getting involved in it. I've never actually understood which bit of J&K is disputed, or whether all of it is, and I have always had a reluctance to get involved in issues of disputed territories wherever they may be, eg: Israel/Palestine. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked?
If I've been blocked from editing, why has nobody contacted me? -PAKHIGHWAY (talk) PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have now blocked you from all articles for six months, to enforce the topic ban. This edit and these edits were a pretty clear-cut violation, the latter, however, being a talk page. You were already right against the edge of your topic ban before, but these push things over the edge. for a review of this block. It's not immediately clear to me if the topic ban would then have six months to run on the conclusion of this block, or if it would restart at that time. I suggest the latter, but request feedback from JzG. --Yamla (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yamla (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * PAKHIGHWAY, I am around for a few hours. If you wish to comment at the ANI thread then post here and I will copy it for you. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of the consensus of the discussion at WP:ANI is that six months was too harsh. I have therefore reduced your block to one month. Your topic ban restarts once that block expires. That means your topic ban will be in effect until 2019-03-06. --Yamla (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind, PAKHIGHWAY, that if you continue these breaching experiments on your return, you will almost certainly be site banned. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Cabayi (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks. Sadly I've been framed and now banned indef. Thanks for the barnstar though. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Why in the world would I setup a sockpuppet account, when I'm literally 5 days away from being unblocked. Does that sound logical to you whatsoever? This is outrageous! --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Infef Block Appeal

 * Hi PAKHIGHWAY. If you want to make your case on the SPI page, make a statement here and ask for it to be copied to that page. Someone will do that for you. I suggest focusing on the SPI result (and being reasonably brief). Best. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . What can I possibly say? Every time I defend myself and speak up, I'm threatened with blocks. This is constant harassment and nothing else. The indef block was initially placed off a fictitious sock puppet accusation, which several commentators have already noted was odd. The investigation I read concludes nothing and proves nothing. If one looks at my history, yes I have an issue with arguing and reverts, but I have never once used a fake account. It's not my style and I'm not afraid of getting blocked either, as you can see above. Two previous sock puppet accusations were also leveled against me by D4iNa4 and Co., both of which came back false. This was a planned attack against me, and I have no doubts about it that D4iNa4 is involved, considering he himself has been proven to have used 3 fake accounts from 3 overseas IP addresses. The only thing I will address to the investigation is the one member claiming that my IP changed; this indeed is true and I can explain that by saying my employment posting changed temporarily overseas. This occurred in February 2017 and will end in February 2019, and coincides with my IP changing. After February 2019 when I return, my IP will once again revert back to the original. As far as I know, that's not against Wikipedia rules. As for being in the "same geographical locale"...what does that even mean? You mean to tell me Wikipedia members are all separated by thousands of kilometers? I find that very hard to believe. And you mean to tell me my IP could not have been tracked down and then used to frame me, which I am 100% sure occurred. That's all I can say...the rest is up to you folks. I'm not going to beg anyone, because it seems like some here have taken this whole moderation thing to their heads. If someone is expecting me to beg them to reinstate me, that's not happening. I will respect the decision and protest respectfully and professionally. But I don't beg to nobody. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not an arbitration enforcement block. Your appeal will be dealt with here. --Neil N  talk to me 15:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Whatever it is, tell that D4iNa4 that his attempt to try and get rid of me will fall in vain. His obsession and anti-Pakistan mentality is clearly visible. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way please check out this Sockpuppet investigation of  from a few years ago. See the bottom conclusions made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogesh_Khandke/Archive "However, D4iNa4 has been editing from a number of open proxies worldwide, and the following are  Confirmed matches to one another:". This character is pure trouble. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you focus on your own situation. --Neil N  talk to me 16:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd love to focus on my situation, if I could even comment on that North Korean investigation you folks have started over there. If you won't even let me type and defend myself, then what's the point of an investigation? Yes, let's all believe the right wing Hindu nationalist who created 3 sockpuppet accounts from different worldwide IPs. (,, . I'm sure they have nothing to do with this. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But unlike you I never violated WP:SOCK, i.e. abusing same accounts on same page and I had made it very clear during unblock request as well. One of the account wasn't created by me and there was "assumption of guilt" because I used proxy. While you created a new account to promote your pseudohistorical nationalist nonsense on very same template that you heavily edited with your main account and canvassed same editors, some of which you have canvassed a few times before with your main account. Focus on your gross WP:CIR issues if its possible, though I think I am asking for too much. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your mental gymnastics is hilarious to say the least. Almost as hilarious as that matata "empire". But that's for another discussion after I get unbanned. The first is trying to figure out your weird obsession with me. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear, I'm a little confused over what decision has been reached over my status at Wikipedia. Since I cannot defend myself on that investigation page, I have no choice but to use my own talk page. I have read the sockpuppet investigation, and most seem confident or are leaning towards the idea that this sockpuppet is not me, which it is not. The only one pushing this claim is , a user who has a personal vendetta against me and has tried several times to get me banned in the past. Two previous sockpuppet investigations were done against me prior, both of which were found to be unfounded...third times a charm? Furthermore, a person such as D4iNa4 who himself was caught using 3 sockpuppet accounts as mentioned in this sockpuppet investigation here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogesh_Khandke/Archive, should raise eyebrows, especially when it was found that all 3 accounts had different overseas IP addresses. Should this not raise some questions? Also, one user mentioned how my account IP changed. This is nothing unusual...people move around the world. I have temporarily moved due to my job posting overseas and that coincides with my IP changing in February 2017. And I don't appreciate those other editors mocking me and making claims I am that sockpuppet without evidence. If CheckUser came back empty, what seems to be the problem here? If I was banned for 1 month, why risk an indef ban using an account that as mentioned in the investigation "is in the geographical locale". --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

WTF?
Adding on...this is quite unusual because my facebook account also was deactivated. Facebook claimed I was using multiple accounts and that I had hacked someone else's FB. I had to upload my ID and photo to confirm indeed this was my profile.

And now this? I'm impressed.

I mean look...I get it...a certain group want me gone...they don't like the fact a Pakistani guy has a backbone. But this is seriously a new low...it's clear I was framed.

Please tell me what good would it be for me to open a multiple account? I stayed quiet after the 1 month block, just so you folks could have your victory lap.

But this is really a new low. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Appeal #3

 * 20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)}} PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, I think some benefit of doubt should be set aside regarding the above. Especially if the cause of the indef block is something the blockee did not do in the first place (should that be proven, and based off my assumption that PAKHIGHWAY knew better). However, this is solely my opinion after going through the SPI, and the final judgement will obviously defer to the admins' call. PAKHIGHWAY, for your part, I hope you will learn to be more careful going forward and avoid the reasons of course which led to the initial block. While this seems a frustrating experience for you, a good start would be acknowledging what led to that block, and avoiding the emotional sensitivity which seems to get the better of you at times. I would suggest focusing solely on the reason of the block, and not thinking too much of allegations or who said what etc. as that does not help. Good luck, and hopefully you learn from this. Regards,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

خدا حافظ
Hello and. It seems like my return to Wikipedia will not be occurring. Now that I am indef blocked off a fictitious sockpuppet investigation, it seems like I'm being sent a clear message to leave, and as such I have now decided to. I cannot defend myself fairly so there's not much of a point in arguing with them. I would love to contribute to the Pakistan Wikipedia program as many of our articles are poorly written, but it seems like some here do not like educated Pakistanis who stand up for themselves. Coupled with the fact I've also been attached with a lot of criticism and controversy, it would be proper for me return these barnstars that you both awarded me with (The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit & Writers Barnstar Hires) as to save you both any future problems (ie. being associated with PAKHIGHWAY). If I return, which is looking less and less likely, I will happily re-accept these barnstars at a later time. Good luck to you both - I will be lurking around my Wikipedia talk page. If you all need any help, I am more than happy to use my offline sandbox and make edits to any articles you may need, in particular Pakistan Railways and related articles. I can then forward those edits/code to your if needed. As for me, I'll be back at Google Maps, where I have been extensively mapping since 2009. Furthermore, I am also present at an online architecture forum where I post time to time. It would be great for both of you to join. Take care and good luck and keep up the good work. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi PAKHIGHWAY, please be patient and give time to the admins to digest everything. My feeling is that you will be fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Pakhighway. I feel the same. Please be patient and give time to the admins to think about it. You have made good point in "Infef Block Appeal" section. I am not going to comment about "somebody trying to set you up", but your reasoning in "Infef Block Appeal" section sounds logical. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * PAKHIGHWAY, no one was preventing you from being an educated, proud Pakistani who stands up for themselves. Even when everyone thought your nationalist bias was becoming problematic, you were practically begged to continue editing in the subject area. TBAN? Reduced in scope. Blocks? Short, or reduced upon review. Even this SPI block could probably be theoretically overturned, seeing as numerous editors expressed skepticism over the evidence. It's possible an admin would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you killed your own chances by your reaction to this block. If you actually read the guide to appealing blocks, as is advised, you'll see that an understanding and ownership of the behavioral problems at play are central to block reviews. While you claimed the evidence against you was fabricated in a plot, that may be true, but you also claimed you were wrongfully blocked to begin with. You still have not even begun to acknowledge the nationalist bias that led to your topic ban and previous blocks. The whole point of a temporary block becomes moot as soon as you make that clear. You could be formally exonerated regarding the sockpuppetry claim, and I would still not unblock you because you're openly declaring that the temporary block did not have the desired effect. S warm   ♠  20:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand...what do you all want from me? Sit here and let others make false accusations and issue indef blocks without any evidence? Should I just remain quiet? I accepted the 1 month block...and kept quiet. Didn't make a fuss out of it. What else do you want me to do? Stand on my head and sing a song for you? Beg for your forgiveness? That's not how Wikipedia works last I checked. You issued a block...I accepted it. Case closed. From what I gather, it seems like everyone was expecting me to go all crazy over the 1 month block...and when I didn't, something more drastic needed to be done to get me to react. This is becoming more of a joke and I'm tired of arguing. Want to keep me banned, go ahead. I'm done. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is private information like you claim you had with other internet accounts, you can contact the Arbitration Committee either by using Special:EmailUser/Arbitration_Committee or emailing them directly at . Since this involves CheckUser data (though it isn't a CU block), they would probably be the best forum of review considering there might be other private information. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . How do I go about appealing this nonsense? At present time I really don't know what I'm blocked for. Over the past week, I've been harassed by so many people and admins hurling insulting comments to me and threatening me with blocks (such as ) that I'm confused. The person involved in my sockpuppet case basically ignored several other senior members who came to my defence and noted how this is not sockpuppet behaviour and most probably was done by someone who wanted to get rid of me. With this sort of behaviour from admins, what chance do I have exactly? If they are adamant about banning me off flimsy evidence, then there's no hope. Who should I contact to that my WHOLE case from top to bottom is reviewed. I want to make sure those who blocked me in the first place are also investigated for personal bias. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing you don't seem to understand. Blocks are not like jail sentences, where you have to serve your time and then you're free. Blocks are not a punishment. Blocks are there to prevent disruption. So, no, we never wanted you to just quietly "serve your time" while disagreeing with the block. We wanted you to acknowledge you EARNED the block, and that you needed to change. This isn't about you serving time quietly. This is about you changing your behavior. And since you're openly declaring that the month long block wasn't fair or legitimate, it's clear you can't be trusted to return to editing based purely on the nationalist bias alone. It's not getting better. Blocks, bans, nothing has had an effect! I think the socking was obvious, but it really doesn't matter. The big problem was never the socking. The problem was your nationalist POV. And youre admitting that we still can't trust you to check that, not can we force you to. You simply can't edit here. S warm   ♠  15:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What is nationalist about the edits I have made? I am forwarding a lengthy email to the arbitration committee as someone above mentioned and will be personally naming several users for gross incompetence and personal bias. And who is this "we"...you cannot trust me, that's your problem. I'll get a consensus from a group of editors who are not obsessed in getting rid of me, as you folks are. Thank you. Oh and by the way, here's a discussion currently going on about a series of fake sockpuppet accounts based in India trying to frame Pakistani editors. But I'm sure this has nothing to do with me right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kashmir_conflict . Mark my words, I will be back. At first I felt that I should just give up, but your holier than thou tone has pushed me to make this a bigger issue. I will not go down easily. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See this paragraph.If you want to take some advice, your vile sweeping remarks isn't helping your cause even slightly and shall you continue, your talk-page-access may be revoked. ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh uh; and I can't imagine the threats of returning as a sock are contributing particularly positively to their case...  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 16:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
Hi, I've revoked your talk page access, because you're getting into arguments with others, and this isn't going to help you get unblocked. I've provided you with ArbCom's contact information, and you are also free to appeal to WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion
User has engaged in block evasion as of June, 2018. User is on track to be banned by the community under WP:3X, though this has not happened yet. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Indus Valley State Railway


A tag has been placed on Indus Valley State Railway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Indus_Valley_State_Railway. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ron h jones (Talk) 20:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Scinde, Punjab & Delhi Railway


A tag has been placed on Scinde, Punjab & Delhi Railway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Scinde,_Punjaub_%26_Delhi_Railway. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 20:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Scinde Railway


A tag has been placed on Scinde Railway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Scinde_Railway. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 20:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Punjab Northern State Railway


A tag has been placed on Punjab Northern State Railway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Punjab_Northern_State_Railway. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 20:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)