User talk:Towns Hill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Towns_Hill/Archives/Archive_1

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bangladesh Liberation War. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I do not think it is an edit war at all. A lot of the information is extremely one sided. Either it needs to be reformed or a complete separate section will need to be added to explain the other viewpoint. Thank you.

@Volunteer Marek

The information I added was correctly sourced. Some parts of the previous revisions are completely unsourced. However it seems like you may have vested interests in presenting a one-sided perspective of the conflict with no consideration at all for the viewpoints and sources of the other side. In this case you are violating all of Wikipedia's neutrality policies.

3rr

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Pakistani Shia Muslims. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I do not think it is an edit war at all. A lot of the information is extremely one sided. Either it needs to be reformed or a complete separate section will need to be added to explain the other viewpoint. Thank you.

@Son of ATM

The information I added was correctly sourced. BUt you have started vandalizing wikipedia by removing that sourced material. However it seems like you may have vested interests in presenting a one-sided perspective of the conflict with no consideration at all for the viewpoints and sources of the other side. In this case you are violating all of Wikipedia's neutrality policies.

Re: Your email

Hello there, I looked at the link that you sent me (User:Kautilya3/serial/Faiz) and I see nothing there that would constitute harassment. Everything on that page is simply copied from the edit histories of various articles, along with the WHOIS info for the IP addresses -- all of that is public information. A Train^talk 09:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reply via email: I'm not sure what it is that you want me to do. You may not have knowingly revealed that information, but by editing when not logged in, you reveal your IP address. Geographic locations associated with IP addresses are public information. Please see WP:IP for more about that. A Train^talk 09:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your last email, you want your IP edits to be oversighted. I do not have oversight privileges, so you would be better served at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Additionally, I will not be blocking the user you are accusing of harassment. As I said earlier, I do not see any evidence of harassment. Best of luck, A Train^talk 09:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Towns Hill (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22166 was submitted on Jul 24, 2018 15:30:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard Offer appeal by User:Towns Hill regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just Chilling (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan

I realise that my past behaviour was not the best. I am not exactly proud of that. But I do have thousands of bytes worth of verifiable content to my name. The quality of my contributions were good. I realise that my behaviour of edit warring and socking was bad. I want to make a fresh start with my good side only this time. I understand some people doubt my application because of the Faizan incident. Faizan is now deceased and I don't want to dwell on his story too much out of respect for the deceased but his hacking claim was not the truth. I had been recruited (and rejected) at various times by Faizan, Kautilya3 and others for meat puppetry and in Faizan's case he told me to make edits from his own account. I can share these users' emails to me with admins in private if they wish to verify what I am saying. I will share this non-public information of other users only privately. Those days of allowing myself to be used as others' meat and using socks myself and edit warring were not exactly my best days. I am not proud of it. But I don't think this should be held against me forever. I do believe I should be given another chance.

Pinging past blocking admins @Just Chilling, Vanjagenije, and Bbb23: EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer appeal declined

Posting here to let you know that I have closed your standard offer appeal discussion as declined by the community, and so you will not be unblocked at this time. A permanent link to the discussion is available here. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]