User talk:Calore123

Calore123, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Calore123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Calore123. You have new messages at Talk:Kashmir conflict.
Message added 09:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit request denied. DBig Xray 09:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! However, you should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Regional hegemony. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DBig Xray 09:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of wars involving India‎. 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.

Given you are aware of how things work here, your continued edit warring without initiating a discussion will be reported. My Lord (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965[edit]

I will be happy to dig more deeply in your edit history to see if a topic ban for those topics is warranted--you were warned before. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Having biased information on the wiki is not acceptable, and if you wish to allow such a thing then do not consider this a neutral forum for information.

@Drmies: I have checked the history of this editor since he made problematic comments on Talk:Regional hegemony. His recent comments after your warning that "Indian users"[1] want to claim victory is not only a deliberate marginalization of a common fact but also a personal attack and shows his battleground mentality. Kindly topic ban/block the user before better editors lose their cool over this problematic editor and dive into sanctionable conduct. Sdmarathe (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As signaled above: there is no place for this kind of edit. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Calore123. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calore123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My friend made an account on wikipedia after I discussed something with him that had to be changed. I was blocked for this?

Decline reason:

Yep, that's pretty much one of the definitions of abusing multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calore123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well I apologize I was unaware that was the reason. As you can see through my revision history, I have been contributing to the wiki for months and I would really love to continue doing this. I was unaware of this being considered sockpuppetry, and for that I deeply apologize. Please reconsider the block. Thank you, I really appreciate it.

Decline reason:

remove duplicate. also, cannot see that the reasons for the block have been adequately addressed. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fine. Let us agree that you are not a sock and this block is a complete misunderstanding. Still though, there are enough reasons to keep this block in place. You had already resorted to badgering,[2] and misrepresentation of source.[3] You first changed date of the war on infobox by using unreliable source,[4] your edit was reverted and you were told to use talk page[5] and after that you added the same content but this time on section.[6] This was clear gaming of 1RR as well. In short words, there are too many reasons for justifying this block and I recommend no return without any topic ban. By the way, thanks for encouraging us to change the results of these war articles, unfortunately you failed to collaborate with us. My Lord (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calore123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To address that time issue, it was written like that just moments before I updated that on the infobox to make it match the rest of the page and I read into the source and it showed what I wrote. However, the other editors took that part out. I was gonna raise the issue on the talk page now, and still I confess I have made many editing errors, but I wish to be given another chance so I can continue to edit the wiki, as I have been doing for a while. Please take this into consideration, thank you.

Decline reason:

I agree, there's no reasonable chance of you being unblocked without a topic ban. I'd suggest a complete ban on any topics related to India or Pakistan, broadly construed, combined with a WP:1RR restriction, for twelve months, combined with a permanent restriction against any use of multiple accounts, including recruiting your friends to edit for you. If that seems reasonable to you, I'll discuss it with the blocking admin. You'll need to let us know what sort of topics you'd like to edit instead. Yamla (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am fine with that. I intend to probably edit like articles on historical wars and conflicts, and probably thinks related to ancient monarchies or what not. One thing about the topic ban on India and Pakistan, I was hoping to work on writing and patching up the page Culture of Pakistan and like Indo-Persian culture and some other pages on minor princely states which seem to lack a lot of information. I am willing to not edit on controversial pages like Indo-Pak wars, which seems to be the cause for most of the issue here. I was wondering if that is fine with you guys, as I would love to continue editing the wiki and discuss stuff on talk pages. Calore123 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The topic ban would apply to any topics related to India or Pakistan, broadly construed, not just Indo-Pakistani wars and political conflicts. --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well.

You haven't said what articles/topics you would edit if unblocked that are not in the scope of the topic ban.

For reasons of my own, I'd like to ask two other administrators about unblocking this user: @Drmies and Doug Weller:.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb, I do not have much faith. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calore123. I want to know why Anzan7 (a Cricket editor) reverted to your preferred versions on at least 3 war articles and used same argument, including a same bare URL as you? [7][8] My Lord (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, at this point this is just outright attributing everyone's actions on me. How am I supposed to know who this user is, or why he agreed with my revisions? Wouldn't probably most neutral observers or Pakistanis who feel upset over the "supposed bias of having India being claimed victor" agree with me? It is simply insanity if you expect me or want to accuse me now somehow because some user out of the blue did a similar revision to me.

This issue shouldn't have been raised here. A CheckUser has already found that Anzan7 is Unrelated to Calore123. At the same time, @Calore123, you haven't answered my question above about your editing plans. You must answer. Also, please remember to WP:SIGN your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to edit monarchy articles like I did before, and perhaps work on gathering information on small nations and empires that have very little information present on them. I may also be working on languages, and making sure, especially the minor more unknown ones, have a substantial amount on info on the page. Once again, I want to thank everyone here for being helpful and understanding of my situation. --Calore123 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are still claiming that "most neutral observers or Pakistanis" would oppose those edits even when there has been no opposition for over 1 week regarding the results and the way you are disregarding conclusion by reliable sources as "supposed bias of having India being claimed victor" even after having a block for similar issues earlier. I am opposing any unblock for you. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calore123, I'm afraid given the discussion above, the consensus is that it would be inappropriate for us to unblock you at this time. Your best bet now is to step away for at least six months and then apply under WP:SO. Note that the block applies only to the English-speaking Wikipedia. You are free to build up a history of productive edits on other-language versions of the Wikipedia (and this may count in your favour if you subsequently apply under WP:SO). --Yamla (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Late response to User:Bbb23's ping. Calore123, I fully agree with Yamla, please take the advice offered. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking[edit]

Hi. A few months ago I was blocked due to sockpuppeting, and though I was able to explain myself in that other things about vandalism in Indo-Pak war articles resulted in my ban. Before those few weeks in mid-2018, I have been an editor of the wiki without any of these controversial edits or things. It has been a few months since that event, and I am dedicated to producing quality and meaningful edits on the wiki. Please take this into consideration, and I deeply apologize for any disturbance I may have caused. talk 15:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six months from June 26, 2018 is December 26, 2018. You are not yet eligible for unblock under WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking[edit]

So now that six months are over, I am asking based off my previous statement I made above if it's possible this ban could be reconsidered? talk 21:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the history of productive edits in other language versions of the Wikipedia. Additionally, please state explicitly whether you have edited the English language version of Wikipedia (via any account, or via anonymous edits) in the past six months. Finally, please state explicitly whether you are willing to abide by the restrictions I suggested on 2018-06-26. --Yamla (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I am not skilled enough in another language to be able to provide grammatically correct and useful edits on another language version of the wiki. I don't recall exactly what but I know that a few times I corrected some mistakes or minor errors I think on a French monarchy page? I really don't exactly remember but I made like some edits I know through anonymous edits. And yes I will for sure be willing to abide by the restrictions you suggested.

-- talk 15::11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

When you say "I made like some edits I know through anonymous edits", do you mean on the French Wikipedia or on the English Wikipedia? By "French monarchy", do you mean List of French monarchs? --Yamla (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean on English wikipedia. I don't remember if it was on the page of List of French monarchs or just some other european royalty thing. Once again I am not exactly sure because it was such a long time back.

Also, have you ever used an account other than this and Acnologia0 here on the English Wikipedia? --Yamla (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not used any other account, and again that was the one a friend made and of course now I understand that is still unacceptable for someone else to make an account merely to support one argument on a talk page.

So would we be right in understanding that you edited pages relating to French monarchs on the English Wikipedia as an IP editor during the block of this account? That seems to be what you're saying above, is that correct? Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what page it was on. But I think I made one or two edits in the past 6 months. Now again I don't remember if I did or not, or what page it was one exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calore123 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your honesty. That means you are not eligible for unblock consideration under WP:SO at this time. Normally, I'd say you aren't eligible for at least 6 months or possibly a full year. However, I suggest, based on your honesty, I'd be personally willing to endorse shortening that to 3 months from today. You'd still need to address the other concerns that lead to your block at that time, mind you. Note that we wouldn't have unblocked you here without checking to see if you had edited anonymously, so we would likely have discovered this later in the process, in case you are thinking whether you would have been better off being dishonest here (but note, I'm not implying you actually were thinking that). Note that other administrators may have different opinions. They may think it mandatory that you wait another six months from now, but it's also possible other admins may choose to overlook this violation, given your honesty. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re - Unblocking[edit]

So now that six months are over, I am asking based off my previous statement I made above if it's possible this ban could be reconsidered? talk 10:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

????

Um, So now that six months are over, I am asking based off my previous statement I made above if it's possible this ban could be reconsidered? talk 23:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

{{unblock|My above messages^}} 13:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Please rewrite this to be an unblock request, not just "please search through my talk page discussions to find the part where I actually made the unblock request". Your unblock request will likely be read and acted on soonest if you follow WP:GAB. In other words, briefly explain to us what you did wrong, and tell us how you will do things differently in the future. You don't have to apologize or anything; just convince us that you can follow the site's rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calore123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi. A year and half ago I was blocked due to sockpuppeting, however I was able to explain myself due to my misinformation that asking a friend to produce an account solely for one purpose could be construed as sockpuppeting and thus must be avoided. Six months later the admins were prepared to unblock me yet I honestly stated that through another IP Address on a different computer I edited like 2-3 articles slightly and thus they were compelled to continue the block (which I, of course, do not recall now but vaguely remember them being some French Monarchy thing). Before those few weeks in mid-2018, I have been an editor of the wiki without any of these controversial edits or things. It has been a while since that event, and I am dedicated to producing quality and meaningful edits on the wiki. Please take this into consideration, and I deeply apologize for any disturbance I may have caused. Thank you as well to User:NinjaRobot Pirate for directing me to the appropriate steps to take

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calore123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for near two years and am thus requesting if I can be unblocked due to my already previously stated commitment to continue abiding by Wikipedia policies and providing insightful and source-based edits. If any issue arises, I intend to solve it via the talk page of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calore123 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hi Calore123, please create a new unblock request that contains: 1) Proof that you understand why the original block was made (this is not about sockpuppetry!); 2) An explanation why the original block is no longer necessary today, and 3) More precise examples than a generic "insightful and source-based edits" statement. You are welcome to do so immediately this time, and do not need to wait months before doing so. Thanks and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Formal Request to Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calore123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for near two years and am thus requesting if I can be unblocked due to my already previously stated commitment to continue abiding by Wikipedia policies and providing insightful and source-based edits. If any issue arises, I intend to solve it via the talk page of an article. I understand the initial block was made as a result of a near edit-war pertaining to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 article where I was making edits to the infobox without proper citations (instead of participating in a meaningful discussion on the talk page which ended up yielding the same result without a need for my reverts). Going forth, I will be ensuring that any edit I make that could pose controversy or is in reverse of a stated position will be discussed thoroughly on the talk page before moving forth and I will disengage from attempting any other means to do so. I hope to write more on and fix the formatting of some historical empire pages and Battles like the History of the Ottoman Empire and its various subsections, alongside working on other Monarchy pages that I think lack some content and could use updating and fixes. I hope to be constructive in my edits and firmly believe I can edit in good conduct going forth, having seen that this ban has extended for a few years already. I believe I have been thoroughly honest in the preceding months having been declined once due to mentioning I did as a matter of a fact make an edit via IP address on some page (which I think was List of french monarchs) or some other of the sort, having had my block extended for near half a year after that. I was previously declined too due to a lack of response back in October and I truly hope this can all be put behind and I be permitted to re-edit the wiki and be a productive and contributing member of this community. Calore123 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are evading your block as of less than a month ago - it may only be three edits this year, but it's still evading. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.