User talk:TheSawTooth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, TheSawTooth! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Faizan 17:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

ERA[edit]

Hi, I reverted your sweeping change to this article for a number of reasons, here are a few:

  • Blog posts are not suitable sources
  • Press releases are not suitable sources
  • An article about a company which recycles does not need descriptions of what recycling is or general concepts of recycling - that information is provided via wikilinks
  • Despite your edit to the talk page you clearly don't have a NPOV, expanding everything but the controversy section greatly and editing only this one topic is not 'neutral'
  • Using weasel words like 'apparently'
  • You synthesised refs discussing recycling in general with the ERAs mission statement
  • Including needlessly detailed information in contravention of the general manual of style

And so on. I think you should probably avoid editing in this area which you appear to have a close connection with until you're more familiar with Wikipedias rules and guidelines. Cheers, Nikthestunned 09:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I move to dispute your disruption of my fresh attempt to rewrite. I have no connection with this company whatsoever. I have not used any unnecessary positive language for subject or weasel words as you say. Also I move to dispute your claim of sources I have taken from news papers. I request you to read that I have also expanded controversy section much by verifying sources and I here by request you to read the source that is referred as my conclusion is written after reading that. Have you read it or are you just disputing without doing that? I removed one blog source. I advise you not to remove anything such massive in a manner that does not suit civilized persons and let me finish my genuine editing. You are welcome to ask for corrections on subject's talk page or to me but do not disrupt!!! --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I have no connection to the subject. I do not even live on the same side of the globe. So if you want to help me, point by point, case by case, ask me to make corrections and I will try my level best as you can see the effort I am doing to alter this subject which was edited by parties from different angles of the subject. I am impartial. In good faith, I have done another NPOV correction of my edit. Mindless approach is not civil --TheSawTooth (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

A warm welcome to Wikipedia! Faizan 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you ! --TheSawTooth (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Resilient Barnstar
Hi Sawtooth....you have reverted one of my edits Operation Zarb-e-Azb ...(involving cia and u.s) which i think is wrong ... Operation zarb-e-azb is PART of the ongoing U.S. War on Terror. It would be nice of you if you read the article .. War on Terror & Operation Zarb-e-Azb....anyways thanks Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I move to dispute your revision because they are Afghan militants if the reference is saying that they are from that country. You can not defend your country on Wikipedia you have to go and take real action if a fact like this is upsetting you. Wikipedia is only trying to report journalism. I do not think it was wrong as I did not remove other militants. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

first of all you removed CIA DRONE from the article...Im assuming you dont know shit about operation. If you scroll down theres a whole section on drone strikes taking out more than 50 militants. Secondly, im not from afghanistan...Im from pakistan. Third...theres a difference between AFGHAN militants and MILITANTS from Afghanistan. last but not least Operation Zarb-e-azb is based in North Waziristan District......as for the cross border attacks they are not Part of the operation...The main mission of the operation is clearing out north waziristan...quote "against foreign and local terrorists who were hiding in sanctuaries in North Waziristan tribal region."(http://www.dawn.com/news/1112909/pakistan-launches-zarb-e-azb-military-operation-in-n-waziristan) just because theres something with sources doesnt mean its part of the article. and its funny how you keep on saying sources when one of the border attack happened in Lower Dir...which is a district far away from North Waziristan.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you are tired of your rudeness you can use common sense about militants. Do not implement your opinion on me. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol common sense...the cross border attacks are not related to the operation and stop trying to play the blame game...u were rude too. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why you gave me barnstar? --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i think you needs to understand that the "cross border" attack are by Tehreek-i-italiban...and that according to intelligence sources. so stop taking blind side .. http://tacstrat.com/content/index.php/2014/06/13/securing-the-durand-line/ Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my view and your view[edit]

I have removed my own view which was (CIA drone strikes should be added in belligerents) ...and your view that afghan militants" should added in belligerents. I think we should resolves the dispute on talk page first. Please refrain from making edits regarding these two until the dispute is resolved on talk page peacefully. Thank you. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any view on CIA drones. That tag was removed because you always add it in same edit. That is not compromise. --TheSawTooth (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COIN[edit]

Please don't remove the connected template [1] while you are under investigation at WP:COIN, thank you Widefox; talk 21:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put tag on me without proof. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Widefox; talk 22:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using a source twice on one page[edit]

Hi. Just a quick point re: sources:

First instance of a reference: <ref name="fooSite">{{cite web|url=http://foo.com |site=Foo |author=Foo}}</ref>
Next (and any further) instance(s): <ref name="fooSite"/>

Means you don't need to duplicate them =) Nikthestunned 17:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am still learning alot and reading your concerns to reply. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jason Minter for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Minter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Minter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Adam in MO Talk 03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "stalking"[edit]

My friend sorry for the "undo" on your talk page and so...I do not wish to give you a hard time on wikipedia but regarding the accusation that I am stalking you...well it would be quite interesting to note your history regarding Edit Warfare with numerous users on wikipedia. I merely wish that you solve the dispute through consensus. Your recent editting suggest that you first "undo" changes of other users and thn push in your own POV and thn try to talk it out which is against the rules of wikipedia. For more Info read here: Wikipedia:Competence is required and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Thank you Saadkhan12345 (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You revised it because I revised you on Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Do not attack me because my history is not such. Having dispute is normal on wikis. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I revised you because of POV pushing. You should maintain normally let the current version stay, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not POV pushing. A user was following me so I revised him and told him. Now you are following. You are not involved in dispute so what is your problem? Stick to operation zarb-e-azb please it is not personal. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of your dispute with Saadkhan12345, which is offtopic on the talk page Talk:Jason Minter, discuss edits not editors there - see WP:TALKPAGE. Equally, Saadkhan12345 should refrain from spreading disagreement from Operation Zarb-e-Azb over to another article.
TheSawTooth: reflect on this WP:BATTLEGROUND disruption, read WP:IDHT. Widefox; talk 12:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Widefox meet Saadkhan, Saadkhan meet widefox. You can both stop crossing over different topics now for me and directly editwar with each other. I am not editing Jason Minter until deletion debate is over. --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19 November 2014[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some points[edit]

  1. Please withdraw the inappropriate {{edit protected}} until discussion' takes place (read the very-template-you-added for instructions)
  2. "Nikthestunned is forcing to keep old revision of ERA topic" is completely wrong. I just don't want YOUR revision, which consensus also rejected. I'm fully OK it being expanded in a proper manner, I'm just not sure it CAN be as there aren't very many reliable sources mentioning it - it's quite a simple concept really, if no-one writes about it, the article is never going to be particularly large.
  3. "Read his talkpage he is in disagreement in general. I will write again and he will say one word "no"." - I'm sorry, did I not provide a review of every single little problem I had with the article, exactly as you requested? That's hours of my life I'll never get back, and for that I get this response? If you're making useful, constructive edits I'll happily respond. It's reams and reams of you not understanding Wikipedia policy, and continuing on your unknown crusade, which I won't respond to.

Nikthestunned 10:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editwarring means you are forcing. I also gave full response but new messages on your talkpage are disappointing. I am making one last attempt to solve your concern of my draft and make it neutral. --TheSawTooth (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can I edit war by myself?! You're just as guilty of that as I am so please stop accusing me of it. Nikthestunned 13:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if we are both guilty and we are both talking on talkpage as well it should be resolved. Let us not make accusations. I am typing response to content to resolve it. I do not want to get into personal dispute. --TheSawTooth (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied[edit]

Hello, TheSawTooth. You have new messages at Mar4d's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saadkhan12345 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested dispute resolution[edit]

Hi there. DR/N can be used to file a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. - a process for resolving a dispute over article content between two or more editors. It is unable to address disputes primarily concerning user conduct - they should be discussed with the users involved first, and failing that directed here.

  • In brief: dispute resolution should be used when you:
  • Have a dispute with another editor and need help resolving it
  • Are willing to discuss the issues in a calm and civil manner
  • Are open to the idea of compromising with the other editors to resolve the dispute

This process can:

  • Help provide suggestions on content
  • Frame discussions and offer support for parties that want to work towards a compromise

This process cannot:

  • Block other users from editing (either everywhere or specific pages)
  • Remove content that you don't like from articles
  • Force another editor to do something
  • Address disputes that are currently under discussion somewhere else (such as Requests for Comment, Mediation or Arbitration). Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Dispute resolution noticeboard[edit]

  • Look its important to get your view summarized here since you are involved in the conflict. Please have a look and do not ignore so we can reach an agreement. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DR/N[edit]

look SawTooth...your currently engaged in a conflict on Operation zarb-e-azb and it would be appreciated if you filled out the Summary of dispute by TheSawTooth in the DR/N. If you willing to ignore this and not solve this through consensus thn plz stay away from reverting etc on the article. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Krazy horse is reported by Faizan as sockpuppet master. I am waiting for investigation it is on hold. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you can wait for that and also fill out summary. its going to be closed in 2 days if you don't fill it out. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to be closed if Krazy gets blocked. Investigation will give report tomorrow it is ok. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not going to be closed...krzyhorse is not the only one involved. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neat[edit]

Your signature reminds me of another. ;) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I copied it from your help desk message. Did not know we will ever meet. You do not mind, right? :D ---TheSawTooth (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, you can keep it if you want. :) However, I may advise to change the colors a bit - if we ever are both in a conversation (like now), the signatures may get a bit confusing. I got the color codes from this website, so you may be able to find different background colors there. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 22:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it makes sense. Thank you :) ---TheSawTooth (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Also, by the way - that green looks really nice :) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:D ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Recycling Association[edit]

Just a quick FYI. As per my comments during our discussion and after much research / source-scouring, I didn't find the company notable. I withdrew from discussions partly for this reason, partly as I didn't see the benefit to anyone for us to continue. As such, I've nominated for deletion now that the article isn't being heavily edited and we'll see what happens there. Cheers Nikthestunned 16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok ---TheSawTooth (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification - IPA[edit]

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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this I am not your enemy ! Take it EASY! Do not try to sanction me! I have not done anything wrong what is this warning for? EXPLAIN? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more than a formal notification. It tells that if you are disengaging from WP:CONSENSUS, making disruptive edits, and carrying out any other offenses in the articles that are about India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, it may lead to sanctions like topic ban, blocks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am engaging talkpage you are wrong. You deleted so much data from page! You are making intention of sanctioning me on making corrections? War is over my friend we are not enemies we are just encyclopedia users. Do not make it matter of pride it is just reference saying success. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The DS covers Operation Zarb-e-Azb - a topic where you refused taking up the offer of DR/N. Widefox; talk 01:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was sockpuppet report no one want to waste effort link it will be wasted on ERA when it will be deleted. Then dispute was over. It is two month old dispute of other users. I did not know about DS sanction at that time now I know and I am careful. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As 2 editors have disagreed with your edits, don't make this edit again until you prove how it was a "naval success". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure requirements[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure that you would be aware, but the Terms of Use for Wikimedia Foundation projects, (including the English Wikipedia) were modified in June of this year to require disclosure by paid editors. Editors who receive compensation for making edits are now required to disclose their employers, clients and affiliation when making those edits (although you are not required to reveal personal identifying information). You have a few choices as to how you can manage that disclosure - you can do so on your user page, the talk page of the articles concerned, or in the edit summary - but some form of disclosure is required. Failure to do so could result in your account being blocked. However, it is also important to note that while paid editing is discouraged on Wikipedia, it is permissible to engage in paid editing so long as the disclosure requirements are met. Thus this does not mean that you cannot be compensated for your edits, just that you need to be upfront and transparent when it occurs. - Bilby (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the connected COI tag at Talk:Electronic Recycling Association as it is obvious behaviour that more than one editor agree about, shown at the AfDs that the POV pushing is an undisclosed COI per WP:COI, after considering "Consider whether the editor's use of sources complies with WP:RS". Do not remove that tag directly but take up the issue at COIN if you disagree. If you decide to disclose, the COI tag will still be valid. See WP:NOPAY for how to contribute given your COI. Thank you. Widefox; talk 10:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not tag my name I have told you I am not paid. I have cooperated with other users Jytdog and Adventurousme. It is my first topic I did much effort I do not want it to be deleted but if it is deleted I will support delete decision I am not POV or COI. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true (despite your edit behaviour - including edits at the start of your account as per the COI editors), how do you explain editing the same articles as the other paid accounts? Why do you insist on passing off PR as RS, POV pushing, relentlessly edit warring and disrupting? Widefox; talk 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Widefox; talk 12:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


(ec - since post deleted)

What you can't see, is the number of thanks that my edits are getting for bringing up this elephant in the room, consensus it seems. Widefox; talk 13:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can not see my thanks as well. Look [2] :) ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly this disregard for our policies and guidelines such as edit warring, not removing maintenance tags without addressing the issues, not abiding by consensus, while finding your own disruption amusing indicates WP:IDHT. Widefox; talk 15:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my edit my friend. It is another regular user. You did baseless tag accept it. I have regard of policy which is why I did so much effort you did no effort on topic just sit back and judge me. Do not message me now if you want to discuss go to AFD or article. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of strategy advice.[edit]

Hi! I have some advice for dealing with a situation where you are accused of something. Note that I have no opinion as to whether the accusations have merit, because I have not examined the evidence. It is up to the person who makes the claim to provide evidence, which I have asked for. Until I see evidence, WP:AGF applies.

It is tempting to fire off a response every time someone makes an accusation defending yourself, but usually it is a better strategy to wait and see what the experienced editors do. As you can see, we are all about evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: thank you for your good advice some users are putting old report every time some one talk about ERA or put COI tag with my name but truth is I did hardwork on topic by researching this recycling company and it is pity to look at it go to waste. I will give less response now onward. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Battle of Chawinda when you tried to impersonate as an administrator, while undertaking this edit. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Wifione Message 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

@Wifione: I am misunderstood. I was talking about admin action by @Nyttend:. I restored admin action revision to prevent more editwar. My edit summary was reference to admin edit "revises to protected revision admin action". I revised his revision but did not delete other editing of in between duration. I did not claim to be admin how can that be that I claim to be admin every one on topic knows I am not admin user :( -TheSawTooth (talk) 5:13 am, Today (UTC+5.5)

Accept reason:

Reasons mentioned below... Wifione Message 10:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there. This is the difference between the last admin revision and your revision. In other words, your reasoning above, that you reverted to the admin version, doesn't seem to be so, on the face of it. Additionally, your claim that you reverted to the admin revision but unilaterally decided to keep certain edited content in-between, seems to be a smart way to push in your reverts by giving misleading edit summaries. Wifione Message 01:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Wifione: they were not my edit I did not edit in between duration too I was trying to help so that I do not get accused of deleting everything. I do not mind if it is fully revised. But I hope you understand it was short edit summary there was no full stop before "admin action" I did not claim you read it wrong. Sorry about that. You can see admin revised on tags! it was my purpose. You blocked me for impersonation it is not true you can see it now it was just misunderstanding. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I can understand your view on the impersonation part. But by writing that you were reverting to the admin version, is a misleading edit summary. Your statement that you were trying to help goes against your edit. It seems a very clever edit summary and a very specific choice of keeping certain content and removing other content to your benefit. Do please confirm that from this point onwards you will not edit war on the particular article and that you will not leave misleading edit summaries ostensibly to support your version of the article. Once you confirm that, I can unblock you. Wifione Message 07:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Wifione:. I read your warning on noticeboard I was thinking I will be blocked if undo edit that do not concern me without giving reason. I did not have reason to revise in between edits it was not my purpose to give misleading editsummary my purpose was to halt editwar if I revise admin revision. But now I think I should have revised without caring to full admin revision. I confirm this was true misunderstanding I will try to use better edit summaries. I could not expect some one will think I am claiming to be admin. Can you please confirm it I was misunderstood and unblock me? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were not misunderstood. I believe your usage of words, edit summary and the mis-editing of the previous administrative version are very deliberate and carefully planned. However, I don't think the same would require a block, given your statement above. I shall re-remind you of the fact that you have already been informed about discretionary sanctions. This is simply a re-notification of the same. Please ensure that your future actions do not end up into you getting sanctioned by me or any other administrator. You should not use tendentious statements against other editors too. Be civil and progress with collaboration in your editing. I am unblocking you as of now. Thanks. Wifione Message 10:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. Maybe you can find it easy to believe that I did not claim to be admin. Rest you do not have to believe it is my bad luck I did not expect this block now I will have to be careful as you say. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAK[edit]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm from WikiProject Pakistan. We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me or at the Wikiproject Pakistan noticeboard and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We are looking forward to see you around!
lTopGunl (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chawinda Maintenance Tag[edit]

Can you please comment on the Chawinda Maintenance Tag discussion if you can. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have commented. I was replying on topic talk page to every one's question but my internet is very slow. Sorry for late reply. -TheSawTooth (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:BLUD on Talk:Battle of Chawinda[edit]

TheSawTooth, I have closed this discussion. I found that the consensus in that thread was to impose a topic ban on both you & Nawabmalhi concerning all military pages about India and Pakistan. Consider this an indefinite ban -- that is, a ban that could last forever, or only a few days -- until you can convince enough people on WP:AN/I to lift it. My advice is for you to simply stay away from the article & its talk page & let things be for a few months before seeking to lift this ban. Doing otherwise could lead to you being subjected to further bans. -- llywrch (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheSawTooth&oldid=1136134550"