User talk:KahnJohn27

Archives

1, 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guru Arjan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khusrau. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assyrian people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Joseph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Theft Auto Online, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metro (newspaper). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting at Muhammad Iqbal; discussion does not take place in edit summaries. Go to the article talk page and establish a consensus for your version of the content. Tiderolls 13:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• When you have the time here's the quote from the policy page: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. As I have advised, you really need to better acquaint yourself with the policy. Tiderolls 21:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: So does that mean I'm edit-warring just because I reverted removal of an edit few times because of their illegitimate reasons to remove sourced content? Don't think so. I don't want to indulge in an edit-war nor I will. And I don't see how anymore of this is important as I already said I will discuss. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: Why have you blocked me? I didn't do any edit-warring and I already said I wasn't going to. You didn't even give a notice that I've been blocked. You are over-stepping your boundaries over a small thing and have given me a draconian block of 1 week. Please unblock me now. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Muhammad Iqbal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Tiderolls 08:29, 19 February 2016 (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).

KahnJohn27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The administrator has blocked me over a trivial matter which isn't real. He claims I have been edit-warring though I didn't. I only reverted a few times and was never going to revert again and get into an edit war. Yet he has given me a long block of 1 week. As I said earlier I'm not going to revert again, get into any edit-war and will discuss the whole thing out. In fact, I had myself reported my reverted him. If you see my getting into reverting again then please do block me. But I promise I won't revert again and get into an edit-war. Therefore I ask to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2016 (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.

• Yes, you repeatedly stated you would not continue to revert and then you did this. Actions speak louder than words. Tiderolls 09:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: I did that only because User:Justice007 removed the sourced content over a completely false reason here. I even mentioned this to you on your User talk: Tide Rolls and I myself reported to you that I had reverted it and I told I won't revert again. Even then you claim that I'm edit-warring just because of a few reverts. I am not edit-warring and I'm not interested in it. And if actions speak louder than words, then look at Talk: Eminem where I took a consensus to resolve the situation about Proof and Dawn Scott's deaths as people had doubts whether they were relevant to the article. So from all of this, it can clearly be seen I'm someone who does not want to indulge in edit-warring nor I had any intention to do so. And you're reason for blocking me is wrong. Please unblock me, I promise I won't get into an edit-war and won't revert again. If you do see me reverting it again and edit-warring, then please block me. But for now I request you to not to impose such a long block on me, this block also hampers any ability for me to discuss and talk about the edits with other editors. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made the same promise after your last edit warring block. Tiderolls 09:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: I did and I haven't indulged in any edit-warring since then and nor I was ever going to. You are misunderstanding this issue. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you are misunderstanding the issue. I stated as much in my warning to you and you insisted on reverting to your version of the content. That is edit warring. Tiderolls 10:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: No I'm not. I reverted VERY FEW TIMES and only reverted ONCE after you told me. That too because Justice007 gave false reason to remove sourced content that too without caring to discuss first. That is not edit-warring nor I was interested in getting into an edit-war and nor I will. This block is unnecessary and inhumanely long. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until you understand the policy the block periods will only increase. One more time I will advise you to educate yourself with regard to the edit warring policy. Tiderolls 10:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: Seems you won't try to understand anything and blame me for something did not happen. This is completely inhumane and power abuse, you're trying to belittle me for not agreeing with you. I only reverted a few times. I did not get into any edit-war and nor I was going to. That's it regardless of what you believe. Your block is unjustful. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2016 (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).

KahnJohn27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My earlier unblock request had been declined because the reviewer thought I did not address the reason for my block and also because of other reasons. I do understand the reasons of as to why I was blocked. The admin blocked me over edit-warring. If the admins need an assurance, then I promise and assure that I will not get into an edit-war, talk and discuss instead of reverting continuously and will not cause any disruption. If the admins do see me doing that then please block me then, I won't complain against it. I have made many useful contributions to Wikipedia and that is the sole thing I wish to do. I will not make any disruptive edits. Hence I ask admins to please forgive me this once and unblock me. Thank you.

Decline reason:

overtaken by events; block is now indef, and for block evasion. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2016 (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.

@Tide rolls: User:SheriffIsInTown has reverted again without waiting for the discussion to be resolved. Aren't you going to block him as well for edit-warring? KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Did I block you before I warned you? 14:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Part of the problem here is that you seem to be contradicting yourself. Only a couple of days ago you said "I only reverted a few times. I did not get into any edit-war and nor I was going to" (and can you show us where in WP:EW it says it's acceptable if you only revert a few times?) Now you appear to be saying that you understand you were blocked for edit warring and that you won't do it again? So which is it - were you not edit warring and the victim of inhumane power abuse, or do you accept that you were indeed edit warring? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KahnJohn27. Thank you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (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).

KahnJohn27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My block was set to expire today, but User:Drmies has somehow extended it indefinitely over some claim of sock-puppeteering. I've never done any sock-puppeteering. From the notifications I've received and this SPI investigation, Drmies seems to claim that an editor by the username of Lakhbir87 is my sock-puppet over a CU check due to apparent "behaviour similarities". I've noticed that Lakhbir87 reverted the article to stop User:SheriffIsInTown from edit-warring after I was blocked. On his talk page, some admins even claims that his and mine account have technical connection. However, the user is not my sock-puppet and I have no connection at all with him. I don't even know who this guy is. Therefore, the judgment of Drmies of thinking me to be him is completely wrong. Hence, I ask the admins to lift the block as it is based on false grounds.

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence is clear that you are the same user as Lakhbir87, or at the absolute very least are sharing multiple devices with them. There is no way whatsoever that you "have no connection at all with him" given the technical evidence. I would suggest that any further appeals that do not directly address the socking be summarily declined. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:36, 2 March 2016 (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.

@Ponyo: No I'm not. And I don't understand how you're still thinking that use is same as me. I don't have a sockpuppet. And also I have done some digging and I found that I've talked with this Lakhbir87 guy once at Talk:Polygamy#Polygamy not illegal in India, agreeing that his claim that polygamy isn't banned in India is correct. Clearly the editors who have blocked me seem to be either clearly mistaken that I have more than one account or it is a false action. So I request again to be unblocked. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with yourself on a talk page doesn't prove anything. As per admins, technical data from both accounts match. Anyone, who is clever enough can do something like that. Actually, it proves to the contrary that you tried to establish consensus in your favor using two accounts. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it does prove that it isn't me. There was no consensus involved at Talk:Polygamy. I agreed with Lakhbir87 after he showed news sources as evidence in support for his removal of polygamy ban in India, even if I disagreed which I earlier was going to before reading his comment on the talk page, it wouldn't have made a difference. You however on the other hand have completely disregarded the evidence on Muhammad Iqbal and given irrational and even fake reasons to remove the sourced content. Not only that you clearly indulged in edit-warring which the other editor stopped you from doing. As from what I've read and seen, only after you realised that you won't be able to enforce your edits again without getting blocked, you lodged a false complaint at SPI. As for technical data, only I use my internet and I only use this account. So clearly this either a mistake or false action. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not discussing the content dispute with you here and you are using your talk page for the wrong reasons. You are only allowed to post here regarding your block. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: And what else do you think I'm doing except talking about my block? Dancing? You seem like a troll to me. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of defending your block, you are attacking me which is out of scope for your talk page permissions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read clearly what I said in my comments. The point of my comment isn't to attack anyone, it's simply to show that this block is wromg and your actions are one of the reasons behind why it is wrong and are directly related to it. That's why I mentioned them. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2016 (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).

KahnJohn27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had asked fir a unblock but a administrator has declined it citing some "technical connection" with another user Lakhbir87. However this is the only account I use, and I am the only person on my internet. So I don't understand how they claim that I have technical connection that too which is based on a false complaint made for obvious biased reasons by User:SheriffIsInTown. Therefore, I request again for to be unblocked as this block is a wrong action by the administrator Drmies who made the block and even potentially a false one.

Decline reason:

Obvious lying fails again. Talk page access revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:13, 5 March 2016 (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.

• Some advice. Continuing to employ unblock rationales that have been reviewed and declined can be construed as disruptive. This can result in the loss of your ability to edit this page. I advise you to delete your request and ask for help in obtaining an unblock. Tiderolls 02:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mad Max Fury Road graphic novel cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of sons of King Abdulaziz ibn Saud by seniority—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KahnJohn27. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: s:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:GULAG letter.jpg and this s:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Letter Koteln Prisoner2.jpg. Sincerely, Hunu (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sleeping Dogs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]