User talk:NoTimeToTalk

Editing[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Need not to tag every edit as an DISRUPTIVE edit as such things might only lead to an bigger issue.

I had provided enough citation and an book too the 120MM LOVA propellant! However I Wrongly mentioned it as explosives,that's an error.It is an well known fact that the arjun is the only 120MM Barreled tank out there in india,and also the book which I have provided might provide some more clarity on the LOVA propellants on arjun.

user:Echo1Charlie Please do not tag other editors edits as unconstructive stuff/ disruptive edits without even actually discussing about the issue. This will only lead to ego clash and Which might lead to Wikipedia:Edit warring. Which will only results bigger dispute.If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You are requested to discuss about adding smoke and heat rounds to the Arjun's armament list☺️.

User:Echo1Charlie And also about adding new sub title caled ==Ammunitions== under the arjun design catogary. Which would include all the details about the Ammunitions used in arjun tank.

Picture[edit]

Greetings, The picture you uploaded to the article [1] is removed due to 2 reasons

It has name written on it
The image you're trying to upload to the article [2] and the image already present there [3] are same

— so the change you made is unnecessary and childish, so please refrain from doing this again and again, I hope you understand. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Echo1Charlie Childish?? Woof, never seen some editor making personal attack by mentioning other editors work as childish.

Mentioning other editors work as Childish or useless stuff will lead to banning under personal attack catogary,sugar coating it will not give an excuse.

There's no regulation in Wikipedia which depicts to remove an pic coz it contains name in it. (Except copyright). NoTimeToTalk (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you get by changing same image with same image, that too of lower resolution and writings on it? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Echo1Charlie Lower resolution??? I would honestly recommended u to see the images clearly or if u can't see the difference or any major changes in the image quality,it doesn't mean others are blind or would have any eye related issues, anyone could spot the image resolution difference. The image has higher shade I mean the lighting is better than that of the old one. (No PeRsoNAl AtTacKs) NoTimeToTalk (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Echo1Charlie It is highly recommended to go through Wikipedi citation rules ,as it does not state to remove an statement coz it is old, every one knows that the arjun has smoke and heat firing capabilities, as u could even see in this pic. https://www.drdo.gov.in/120-mm-armaments-arjun-mbt

We can't rely entirely on drdo and ofb documents as they won't publish most of the details and Wikipedia does not expect the source to be from designer/manufacturer. NoTimeToTalk (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question [4] - picture you're trying upload (resolution 3,508 × 2,343 pixels, file size: 4.23 MB) vs picture already present in there [5] (resolution 5,760 × 3,840 pixels, file size: 8.53 MB) — which is higher according to you? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Helios007 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helios007. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:13, 29 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

"EVERYONE WOULD COMMMIT MISTAKES WHILE EDITING" this has nothing to do with the claims raised by User: Echo1Charlie. The claims made by User:Echo1Charlie does not satisfy or give whole picture about the issue. The area which i edited are totally different from that of accused one User:Helios0007 edits and my style has nothing to do with that of Helios007. (we can't accuse someone due to their style of editing as many Would have the same style of editing) It is an well known fact that everyone will make mistakes while making their edits and for me this page is my very first one and I had even rectified all my editing errors instead of engaging in edit warring or involved in personal attack stuff done by User:Helios007 User: Echo1Charlie engaged in personal attacks and edit warring by breaking Wikipedia consensus policy and tagging all editors work as useless and disruptive edits and never really reaching or engaged in consensus.Everyone would be annoyed in this stage. I had invited him to reach consensus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1044586541 Which he never responded, instead he engaged in personal attacks by saying " your work is childish " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1047023557 And now he portrait me as an sock puppet of an blocked account who engaged in edit warring and personal attacks just like User: Echo1Charlie did. I personally see this an Gaslighting stuff work of User: Echo1Charlie to prevent other editors from editing arjun page. The claims are baseless and the subject of the issues are totally different from one another,as u could see from my edit History itself. If he is correct why can't he have responded to my consensus request in arjun tank talk page to reach WP:CONS ??? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1047025938 what's the reason behind?

Decline reason:

Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) from a technical point of view. Yamla (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

"PLEASE REFER MY EDIT HISTORY AND COMPARE IT WITH THAT OF THE ACCUSED ONE" It is technically not feasible from technical pov to log into an IP banned account platform,as Wikipedia will detect and block it immediately. I would Highly recommended to check my edit History for further clarification regarding the fabricated claims by User: Echo1Charlie as they have nothing in common with that of User: Helios007 or any of his behaviour

Decline reason:

This unblock request itself demonstrates that these two editors, denials aside, are the same person. And even were that not the issue, this is clearly someone too tendentious to be allowed to edit Wikipedia. IN FACT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO REVOKE THE USER'S TALK PAGE ACCESS AS IT'S CLEAR WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANYWHERE (AND IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WE NEVER WERE). HAVE A NICE DAY. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2021 (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.

PLEASE REFER THE DISCUSSION I LEFT ON ARJUN TALK PAGE AND MY EDIT HISTORY* . I had made everything clear regarding the fabricated claims made by User: Echo1Charlie.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1047108752

Time To Do Something Other Than Keep Trying To Talk Here[edit]

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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]