User talk:Towns Hill/Archives/Archive 1

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Partition of India has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Partition of India was changed by Towns Hill (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.93474 on 2016-01-13T13:26:43+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Partition of India

Hello Mr. Butt, I notice that you have been adding a lot of text to the Partition of India article. I haven't yet looked into your edits in detail. However, I need to point out a couple of issues:

• You should never copy whole sentences from the sources. See WP:COPYVIO. You need to summarise the content in your own words. If we find COPYVIO text in your edits, we will revert them wholesale. You cannot depend on other editors to separate the good from the bad.
• You need to appropriate encyclopaedic style in writing your content. See for example WP:WORDS. This problem can be corrected later by some copy-editor if you are unable to do it yourself. However, you should keep the COPYVIO issue in mind. It is extremely important. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: His contribution to that article need to be assessed. Some of contribution is good but there is some POV pushing in between. Moreover, this is brand new account who can fix references of books properly since his first edit. Seems experienced enough. --Human3015^{Let It Go}  08:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Partition of India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Human3015^{Let It Go}  13:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Sanctions

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 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.

--Human3015^{Let It Go}  13:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Towns Hill. You have new messages at Talk:Partition of India.
Message added 13:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Human3015^{Let It Go}  13:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Towns Hill reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Kashmir conflict, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. While you have provided an excellent source, your content is quite different from what is found in the source. Please be more careful in future. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NEWSORG for how to use newspapers as sources. In general, newspaper opinion columns are not reliable sources, unless the author is a well-known scholar. For historical matters, WP:HISTRS should be used, especially on a contentious topic like the Kashmir conflict. You have been already informed about ARBIPA sanctions. Please follow the Wikipedia policies as required. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You've been warned about edit warring

As an admin I notice you making large reverts at several articles, including Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. These articles are on my watch list due to past disputes, which were often intense. The pattern of your edits suggests you are engaged in disruption. Your talk page shows warnings about edit warring as long ago as January, and you've already been notified of WP:ARBIPA. Please be aware that the next time you make a revert on one of these disputed articles, without first getting consensus on the article talk page, I may block your account with no further discussion. If you find yourself in a disagreement, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 sock puppetry.
• 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. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; 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) 15:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Towns Hill, I find that you have been doing well, creating well-sourced content on difficult topics. Here are some suggestions that might improve things for you:

• Your edits are generally huge and span multiple sections. You probably edit them offline and upload the edits. I do the same too. However, it is important to keep each edit to a manageable size and keep it focused on a single issue or topic. That way, if the other editors disagree with an edit, there is an easy way to discuss it.
• I think you need to engage with talk page discussions more. Whenever an edit is reverted, WP:BRD recommends that you open a talk page discussion and address the objections mentioned in the revert. Engaging on talk pages will you get out of the tendency to edit-war, which is considered a really bad practice by Wikipedians. Talk page discussion will also allow other editors to join in, which will help.

Please keep up the good work! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Layout/Styling

Hey, just wanted to let you know that you need to sign your comments, always. To do that, you just have to put four tildes ( ~~~~ )at the end of your comments. Please do that. Moreover, please make you of colons (:) to indent your replies. You can put number of colons (:) to indent your replies. e.g if you would want to reply to my comment, you would put a single (:) without brackets ofcourse, before you start writing your reply. This will add space to the left side of your opening paragraph and would make it easy for readers to understand from where your comments are beginning. Thanks—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 07:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm MBlaze Lightning. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Your recent editing history at Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning

Just received your message so undone the edit.

But you are not even discussing on Talk page nor going through the sources.

@Towns Hill: You need to gain consensus amongst editors, if there is a dispute and not blatantly undo the users who reverts you. You have already violated three-revert rule, so keep in mind, the next time you see yourself being reverted by other editors, discuss the issue at talk page and, not across multiple edit summaries. It's OK i have seen your message at talk page, i'll try replying to it in evening (as i have some urgent work to do), till then, do not make any Further changes/or revert. Thank You! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING

Hi, please familiarise yourself with WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I feel like you might have been a victim of wikihounding as I see a certain editor might have been following your edits. If that is the case, you might want to remedy this situation as I feel that nobody should be made to endure such behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown

Could you please explain in a summary how I should go through this process?Towns Hill (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Your recent editing history at Indian Army shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Towns Hill reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: ). Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area for a period of 1 month, subject to the standard exceptions.

You have been sanctioned due to repeated edit warring

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. slakr^\ talk / 02:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bangladesh Liberation War page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple barnstars for you

		The Multiple Barnstar
		You have earned them by your excellent work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan articles, keep up the good work. Do not get deterred from doing the right thing, the right way! There are editors looking to block you from improving the encyclopedia, keep an eye out for them! Thanks! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown Thanks (bhai). I really appreciate it. I think you should also take a more proactive role yourself in making this encyclopaedia a neutral place of balanced information.Towns Hill (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Hi Towns Hill, Glad to see that you came back. I thought you might get disheartened after that massive revert.

Can you please follow the guidelines of talk pages as described at WP:TPHELP? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, please keep your posts short and to-the-point. When many issues need to be discussed, put them in bullet points or subsections. Multiple paragraphs in a single post are normally to be avoided. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't very clever to revert RegentsPark, who is a highly respected admin. Please remember that you are already under an ARBIPA sanction. The next sanction will be much more severe. You should engage on the talk page, as you are doing, but wait for consensus to develop. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

edit warring

Uhhh... aren't you under a 1RR restriction on anything related to India and Pakistan, which would include Bangladesh Liberation War article? Here's your chance to self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I haven't reverted anything. I have only restored Bina D'Costa's work, Rudolf Russel's work, Anthony Mascarenhas quote has been provided and referenced to an academic journal and subsequent sourced info on Pakistan's Islamisation has been re-added. The rest of your revert is left as it is.

Also it is very telling that you chose this moment to cut out the information we had agreed upon earlier (the Bina D'Costa reference in the article's intro).Towns Hill (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a revert. And you've done it several times. I think you've broken 3RR, nevermind 1RR. Like I said, you really should self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: That is not a revert. That is a new edit. I have in my new edit re-added the info we had agreed upon earlier, readded Rudolf Russel's statistics and changed the reference from Sarmila Bose to Anthony Mascarenhas.

And you still have not explained why you cut out the info we had agreed upon previously (from Bna D'Costa). I will answer that for you. You are using this opportunity to censor sourced facts which are not of your liking.Towns Hill (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You're under 1RR and you reverted 3 times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: In other words you admit to being an opportunist. Hence it doesn't matter to you that you are using this opportunity to cut out information we had agreed upon earlier (Bina D'Costa reference).

Secondly, what I have done is not classified as a revert. Its called a new edit.

Revert is when you restore previous version which I have not done. I have merely edited some of the info from the previous versions and re-added previously agreed upon information.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Drmies (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you should also take a look into how Volunteer Marek is taking liberty of my blockage to cut out whole sourced sections of information (he has already cut out the 'Violence against Biharis' section from the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide page as well as the 'Violence against Bengali supporters of Pakistan' section even though the former section existed on the article even before my presence on Wikipedia). The reason being simply that he wants to censor sourced facts which are not of his liking. And my 60 hour ban is like a golden handshake for him. Towns Hill (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, if you hadn't gotten yourself blocked, you could have done something about it. As for his "censoring sourced facts", I could consider that comment a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Towns Hill: Dude, it's just 60 hours, chill out and accept the block, refrain from personal attacks. You should have been careful, you were under 1RR and I did tell you that people are looking to get you blocked but it's still not a big deal, wait your block out and don't make any mistakes of doing IP edits or creating other user accounts. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Please do tell me, what is the difference between a revert and edit? Because I have made multiple edits on other (related) pages within 24 hours and they were not called reverts. And in this case, for which Volunteer Marek reported me, I did not revert, rather I made new edits which restored only some of the removed sourced information. And I am not making a personal attack, you should go and check out the conversation above. I also request you to leave a brief summary here on how to pursue the Wikihounding (is that what its called) process so that upon being unblocked I can go through the civilized procedure of dealing with wiki-hounding people.Thank you.Towns Hill (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown I also have to confess I feel disappointed in you because of your thinking I would made IP edits or other accounts (subsequently telling me not to do so as if I need instruction in this manner). That indicates a lack of trust. I felt trusted but now feel disappointed. Towns Hill (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Dude, you are just angry. Just chill it out. I know how you feel. Just to give you an idea, a revert means re-adding the same content so if you did that twice (like first using the undo button to undo your original edit and then re-added the 'same' content manually once it was removed by another user, you'll end up with 2 x reverts). I am not sure about your edits being referred by VM, if you can give me the diffs, I may explain it to you better. Thanks—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 10:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Towns Hill: That was a good faith brotherly advice. As I thought you being a relatively new user might make a mistake of doing either of those things and earn a longer block instead. Many new users do that when they get blocked and then they earn a longer block, he did that and look what happened to him, he got blocked indefinitely, also Drmies is an admin if he is telling you to refrain from attack and instead you continue to do so then it can earn you a longer block as well and I did not want Wikipedia to lose such a good editor like yourself. You already fell into a trap and I did not want that to happen again. Please see this about what I was talking about when I say people are looking to block you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• "new edits which restored only some of the removed sourced information"...yeah, that's a revert. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.
Let me remind you that you are under 1RR. If I see you continue to edit-war, I will ask for it to be tightened to 0RR. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: We are currently discussing on Talk.Towns Hill (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

1RR Vio.

You know, you have violated 1RR again ([1], [2]) How about a self-revert? MBlaze Lightning -talk! 10:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I moved this to an relevant section, but you reverted it again. I suggest you to do a self-revert now. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 10:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

More POV pushing

The article Bangladesh Liberation War is under full-protection due to an edit war that you have initiated. It is not proper to go and insert the same contentious content on another page Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, while the content is being discussed on the former's talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 The user also violated 1RR here but a obvious tag-teaming by Sherrif reinstated his version again. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 11:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze: I did not violate 1RR, I reverted as you asked me to. SheriffIsInTown took his own decision, no tagging.Towns Hill (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I don't think that is correct though, i see that he tried to improve the article by adding sourced content. Edit-war was started when Ghatus removed a big chunk of sourced information. Calling something POV pushing by POV pushers does not make it POV pushing. Please refrain from such language. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RegentsPark looked through the content, found it problematic, and froze the article, asking everybody to talk it out. Inserting the same content that is under discussion in another article is no good. I think the short-term blocks are not helping. When the block lifts, the same behaviour is again continued. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Towns Hill: You were informed by Kautilya yesterday again about 1RR and today you violated your 1RR restriction, knowing the fact that the next block will be more severe. You did not did Self-revert by your own, you were told by me. Anyway, Self revert or not, this looks like a clear 1RR vio. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 11:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, And what was this? WP:HOUNDING or Tag-Teaming because what i can see is that, you have made no edit to 1971 Bangladesh genocide in past. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 11:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Open your eyes and check the page history again! I will take you to ANI if you make such an accusation again! I do not wikihound opponents like you do, there are at least 5 pages on which you followed Towns Hill. I edited this page before Towns Hill did and before you followed him there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Towns Hill reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: ). Thank you. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 14:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

POV editing

Hi Towns Hill, I was disappointed to see this edit of yours. The standards of verifiability and NPOV are the same across Wikipedia, and the content should be described the same way on all the pages. Wikipedia is not a blog site and it is not meant for pushing any specific point of view. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I corrected the facts, such as Bangladesh genocide being reson for declaration of independence was inaccurate. It should be replaced by Operation Searchlight, which was the cause of independence declaration. I also substituted previous sources from Sarmila Bose to other academics and included what they had to say (including Rose and Sisson). I also said that in Bangladesh it was described as a 'Liberation war' and in Pakistan as a 'civil war', thus providing both perspectives side by side. It does not make sense to call it straight out a 'Bangladesh Liberation War' on a Pakistan page. Thats like calling it a Pakistani Civil War on the 'Bangladesh' page.Towns Hill (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am mainly objecting to what you said, viz., that on the Pakistan page, "Bangladesh liberation war" should be called something else. But, in general, the information here should be consistent with the Bangladesh Liberation War page, which should be the main article for this content. I am pinging Vinegarymass911 to review your edit for consistency. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gilgit-Baltistan into Kashmir conflict. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Your addition to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, Towns Hill, what does that mean is basically you read the text from the source and then reword it when entering into the article. Try to use your own words. You cannot use exact word to word text from the source. Hope that clarifies. Just trying to help out. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Mblazes Meat puppey Kautilya

[3] Watch out my friend the Indian pov pushers are canvassing sympathetic admins to let socks of the hook keep an eye out and inform neutral admins (if you know any). 5.71.178.216 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown @Tripwire: Coulld you guys please tell me what ths means? I don't really understand what either the IP and Kautilya3 are saying.Towns Hill (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the IP (who is himself apparently a sock of some banned user, I think I know who) is claiming that I am a "meatpuppet" of MBlaze, i.e., I am supposedly doing MBlaze's work for him by defending his edits, apparently under his directions. I think it was TripWire who called me that originally, and the IP fell in love with the term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Towns Hill: It's your talk page, you can just remove that section from your page. People should not be using your talk page to talk to eachother. They have their own pages to do that. I would not say anymore on this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kautilya3 instead of toiling here, if you want to accuse me of something, do it properly. Go to SPI or ANI, the only thing you are apparently good at. BTW Towns Hill, I agree with Sheriff's suggestion.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Domel

Hi Towns Hill, there is no wikipage on Domel. Should there be one? Is it a suburb of Muzaffarabad? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there @Kautilya3! Domail is actually a neighbourhood, not suburb. Its a big part of Muzaffarabad. Its situated between Jhelum River and Airport Road. There doesn't seem to be a reason to not have an article. There are already articles on mohallas in other cities so it sounds like a good idea to me, but I am not sure if there are enough sources on the internet to make an article about it.Towns Hill (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good. That is what I inferred from Google Maps. It is probably a good idea to make a section on it in the Muzaffarabad page because it figures prominently in the Kashmir conflict articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1971 Bangladesh genocide into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice that Diannaa has already warned you about this. Please follow the instructions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Towns Hill, you were also warned once about copyright violations. Please carefully read our copyright policy, summarized below:

you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.

• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kashmir conflict. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.
You are barely coming off an ARBIPA sanction. You should not be reinstating edits repeatedly without reaching consensus on the talk page. Pinging RegentsPark to advise you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

An additional comment: The normal practice for resolving disputes is WP:BRD. When an edit is made, it can be reverted by anybody, following which a discussion needs to happen.

When I see a problem with an editor that I know well (such as you), I open a discussion without reverting. That is an extra courtesy I extend as a friend. I do a revert only when the discussion goes dead. Your repeated reinstatement without consensus is aggressive posturing, which I find quite unwelcome. In future, I will follow BRD with you, because I don't see my friendliness reciprocated. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict restrictions

Please see Talk:Kashmir_conflict#Editing_Restrictions--regentspark (comment) 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a note

You are allowed to remove any notices from your talk page which you do not have any need to keep for! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

3RR

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

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.

You're at three reverts (I'm assuming that was an accident). The source is not reliable. There is no consensus to add this. Don't edit war. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction 2

The following sanction now applies to you:

Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh.

You have been sanctioned due to a pattern of edit warring about the events of 1971, including the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. See your talk page for past warnings, including my post of 6 March. This ban may be appealed in six months.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@EdJohnston: May I ask what led you to make this decision? Can you please outline what specifically this editor did to invite this wrath? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@EdJohnston: [I might live to regret this, but here it goes....] I find Towns Hill's editing valuable. He has found good new sources and brought them to the table. He has initiated discussion on controversial issues. Personally, I find it quite valuable to have a well-informed editor with an opposite POV just to keep my own views in check. It is just that Towns_Hill hasn't yet understood the value of consensus-building and has unfortunately come under the influence of ultra-nationalistic POV pushing that has been gripping Wikipedia this year.

I think an indefinite topic ban for Towns_Hill would be a loss to Wikipedia. I would recommend a weaker sanction, e.g., 0RR for two months and 1RR afterwards, reviewable after 6 months. This would allow him to learn how to achieve consensus through discussion.

I would also encourage him and all other editors to join WP:INDOPAK and live up to its spirit by cooperating rather than endless fighting. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: why did you create his user page for him? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It is hoped that Towns Hill will some day return to editing these topics. But the current problems with the 1971 conflict mean we will probably have to issue more than one topic ban. There are two ARBIPA issues currently open at WP:AE and they are both related to the 1971 conflict. Regarding Towns Hill, I had already left him a final warning in March. It does not seem to have led to any improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This user is edit warring, socking with IPs [4], [5] and attacking other editors. Pinging Volunteer Marek here. He has been warned enough times (just look at his TP's past warnings including one by EdJohnston). Most Importantly, he is pushing OR, fringe theory and over the top POV from months. These articles are covered by ARBIPA. Just take a look at 1971 TP [6] He was hurling accusations and attacking other uninvolved editors "Volunteer Marek: You must be living in some nationalist fantasy land that the world thinks of the conflict as solely a genocide of Bengalis." etc odious personal attacks. I don't have enough time to dig his past history but certainly he was trying to convert NPOV articles into POV COATRACK (that matches with his Pro-Pakistan POV) --ArghyaIndian (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I am extremely disheartened and I am now thinking about leaving Wikipedia for good due to the level of harassment I have experienced at the hands of pro-Indian POV editors since joining Wikipedia, which was unprecedented. You can see how Volunteer Marek himself was employing terrible language like the term 'bullshit' when reverting my edits (on the history revision pages of 1971 genocide page). I tried co-operating in showing the other POV (which was not mine) by talking about role of extremist Muslims in perpetrating atrocities but it seems my co-operation was not appreciated and the pro-Indian POV editors are dead-set on including the figures (eg: 3 million killed) despite acknowledging it as dubious (and it is also a figure now universally regarded as excessively inflated). In contrast they want to exclude the lower estimates of Bengalis killed (both the figure of 26,000 [which came from an official government commission headed by a Bengali judge] and 300,000) and are intent on excluding all Pakistani higher estimates of Biharis killed (500,000 from Qutbuddin Aziz- a source who R J Rummel took into account when coming to his own estimate of Biharis killed. R J Rummel is also used quite extensively as a source on the 1971 genocide page).Towns_Hill 02:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The WP:RSN can be used if there is diagreement about quality of sources. This does require some patience to discuss things. Though there is some poor behavior by more than one party, admins don't have time to oversee all quarrels. Since you'd been warned earlier in the year it seemed it was time for you to be working more actively for consensus. Nationalist areas require so much diplomacy that it may seem to be exhausting, and I can see how you might lose patience. But without such diplomacy, it is hard to make any progress that will last. When people just keep reverting they are likely to attract topic bans. Before admins are all done with handling the 1971 disputes, more topic bans may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So the guy who tried to achieve consensus by deliegetly engaging at talk pages gets taopic banned, but the ones who frustrated him and caused him to commit mistakes go scot free? Why is it that only editors on one side of the fence are always at fault? His tak-page is full of warnigs sure it is as he would have comitted mistakes but he alone against socks, IPs and meat-puppets together couldnt stand a chance. What surprises me is that his talk-page warnings are seen by all, but those (tag-teamers) who caused him to go beyond are still doing it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 10:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak!

Eid Mubarak! آپ کو اور آپ کے گھر والوں کو دل کی اتھاہ گہرائیوں سے عید کی خوشیاں بہت بہت مبارک۔

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pakistani Australians page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Pakistani Australians, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. 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 ~~~~}}.  — Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I wish to apologise for infringing the copyright policies. I don't believe I have too much experience but I do promise to commit myself to not committing further violations of this policy. It is also quite difficult to keep memory of previous warnings due to the difficult layout and complex processes on Wikipedia. Towns_Hill 04:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

you have stated you understand and intend to follow Wikipedia's copyright policy in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material at all. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue. Please feel free to ask me via email if you are stuck and are not sure how to effectively re-word a passage. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement Request

There is a request for arbitration enforcement that involves you. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Towns_Hill. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This edit, to Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide, appears to be a violation of the arbitration enforcement sanction banning you from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh. I suggest you strike your comment and refrain from that sphere until the ban has run its course. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the consensus from uninvolved admins at the discussion above, I have blocked you for a period of 72 hours as a result of this discussion for violating the terms of your topic ban, especially where it concerns conflicts between India and Pakistan. My advice to you once the block has expired, is to stay well away from the topic area, not to try and get as close as you can to the banned topic without going too far. Further probing the limits of the topic ban is likely to lead to blocks with increased severity. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC).

Kashmiri Muslims

Hi there. Do not add unsourced content as you did at this page. Also Raj Sources are not considered reliable on WP. All your content must be verifiable and from reliable sources. Regards, Wasiq 9320 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Towns Hill, I want to again remind you not to add content based on British Raj Sources as you did here [[7]]. Thanks, Wasiq 9320 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wasiq 9320

It is common knowledge that the above mentioned surnames are typical Kashmiri surnames.Towns_Hill 21:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Towns Hill

What really matters is that you use WP:IRS. Wasiq 9320 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Towns Hill. I have left a message for you here [[8]]. Please take note. Thanks, Wasiq 9320 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Towns Hill

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Towns_Hill 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Arbitration enforcement sanction 2

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Towns Hill

The original ban was imposed invalidly to begin with. It was hastily issued and based upon one editor's incendiary comment to an admin's talk page. I was never reported at AE and was not even given a chance to defend myself. I was banned on a comment of an editor who went on admin shopping and knew which admin would be more than willing to entertain his request because that specific admin has been mentioning distributing topic-bans on forums in the past.

Towns_Hill 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Towns Hill

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement Request

There is a request for arbitration enforcement that involves you. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Towns_Hill. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Topic ban violation, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Per diffs 2, 3 and 4 in the report you have violated your topic ban. See the closure of the report for how you might request the one week block to be lifted. If you have questions about the scope of the topic ban, it is better to ask first. If you want the ban itself lifted see the appeals process at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In your appeal below, please get rid of all the pointy brackets. And fill in the missing items such as 'Arbitration enforcement sanction 2' which should be a link to whatever you are talking about. My name is spelled EdJohnston not EdJonston. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have posted your appeal to the noticeboard per this link. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Towns Hill. 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)

Minimarg

Hi Towns Hill, can you check this edit? Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINKing

Hi Towns Hill, please don't add blue links to every occurrence of Christopher Snedden. It should be done only for the first occurrence, and other occurrences should be shortened to either "Snedden" or "he" in order to maintain the flow of the text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict edits

Hi Towns Hill, you know that I have supported cutting you 'some slack' in dealing with Kashmir topics. But this does not extend to Kashmir conflict or any other India-Pakistan conflict pages. You will only be prolonging your pain by repeatedly breaching the topic ban in this manner. Please stay off all the India-Pakistan conflict pages for 6 months and demonstrate NPOV editing, and I will be glad to support the lifting of your topic ban. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I thought you said that the definition of Indo-Pak conflict (which is the subject of topic ban) did not extend to Kashmiri-India and Kashmiri-Pakistan conflict areas. Towns_Hill 10:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Towns Hill

Yes, I did. But the supervising admin didn't agree. You need to go by what he said in his closing remarks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And, if I may make some recommendations, note that the Muslim Conference article doesn't have anything in it. The pages on most other MC leaders are also poor. There is no page on the 1931 Kashmir agitation or pretty much anything about the politics in the princely state. I am the only one that has been writing about the Historical Poonch District. The Mirpur District page needs similar work. So on. There is plenty to do without getting trouble. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

An editor has complained about your edits of Kashmir conflict at User talk:EdJohnston#Towns Hill again. If you continue to edit at Kashmir conflict an admin may feel it necessary to block you from editing for ban violation. In future there could be a way of getting your ban modified. If I thought you were actually willing to follow the ban carefully I might modify it, but so far there is no sign of that. Your best plan is to stay off all the Indo-Pak conflict pages (including Kashmiri pages that are connected to the conflict) for six months as recommended by Kautilya3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Towns Hill, edits like this will not help you get any closer to getting out of your topic ban. The edit violates MOS:LEAD, WP:RNPOV and suffers from WP:Lead fixation and inadequacy of sources.

If there is material in the article that is not adequately summarised in the lead, you are welcome to do so. But you need to state it as such and ensure that you can achieve the consensus of all the involved editors.

If you are not sure, you can raise it on the talk page first and get feedback from the other editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification: Kashmir conflict

Hi Towns Hill. This edit, while apparently not violating the letter of your topic ban, is definitely in violation of the spirit of that ban. I'm putting you on notice that any edit by you that has any bearing on the current India Pakistan conflict broadly construed, and that includes historical events, are covered by your topic ban. @EdJohnston:. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hindu-Muslim riots within India as well as persecution of Hindus in Pakistan (both of which I have extensively expanded content on although you have only reverted my edits on the former) do not fall within the topic ban area. (Towns Hill (talk)

Hi RegentsPark, EdJohnston has indeed clarified that the events that happened in Kashmir before either India or Pakistan got involved would not be included in the topic ban. However, I do see that Towns Hill's current editing spree exhibits very much the same traits that got him into trouble with the 1971 Bangladesh articles. I would encourage him to slow down a bit and think harder so that we don't have a repeat of the old problems. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Persecution of Muslims

More such problems here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I find the Wazir Punnu's quote there quite dodgy. These things are "according to reports received by Walter Lawrence", contained in a letter written some 10-12 years after the event. Lawrence wasn't there during the famine. A good historian won't accept this as sufficient evidence, unless there is corroboration from multiple sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you should first of all take a read of Mridu Rai's comprehensive book on this infamous subject. The words I used on the article (and which Mridu Rai also used) is 'said to have declared' so that the element of secondhandness and doubt in the quote is there. The quote was a representation of the general attitude which the Pandit dominated administration had towards the Kashmiri Muslim masses. (Towns Hill (talk)

Yes, I have read it, and I have also read Chitralekha Zutshi's book. In addition, I reading a whole bunch of Indian PhD theses, which are not as high-profile or as polished as Rai or Zutshi's, but contain solid information nevertheless. Rai clearly has an axe to grind, visible in the very title of her book. And her assertion that As a result of the investigations of both Wingate and Lawrence it was as though a veil had suddenly been lifted... tells me that she is accepting Wingate and Lawrence whole hog, uncritically. That is dubious scholarship. As far as I am concerned, this is just colonial racism. Did Wingate and Lawrence ever write about what the British themselves did in Bengal, Bihar and UP, before they reached Delhi? Did they show any cognizance of the Great Bengal famine of 1770 and how they dealt with it? No allowance has been made for colonial prejudices.

But the point here is merely that a dubious claim of unknown parentage, attributing an especially barbaric statement, which only appeared in a letter (not even in Lawrence's book), doesn't have a place in an encyclopaedia. You need to think twice before adding such content, check and double-check its authenticity, and make sure that there are enough sources to back it up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Pakistan "regional power" references

Hi Towns Hill, I noticed you provided two references on Pakistan being a regional power only for it to be removed by Tiger7523. Please record your statement on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_TownsHill regarding your references that substantiated your position. Kind regards, (Wiki id2(talk) 23:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC))

Arbitration case request declined

Hi Towns Hill. The Arbitration Committee has voted to decline the Regarding removal of phrase "regional power" (with 2 references) from Pakistan article arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. It may be advisable to review WP:DR for next steps. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicated content

Hi Towns Hill, if you keep writing one piece of text and copying it to ten different pages, I will have no choice but to nominate all those articles for AfD. It is not the purpose of multiple pages to duplicate the same content. See WP:POVFORK and WP:SPINOUT. --Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Bosnian War. 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. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 14:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Khurshid Ahmed (secretary)

Hi Towns Hill, I wonder if you know the answer to this question? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Quotes

Hi Towns Hill, I am afraid too many long quotations as you have included here would be a violation of copyright. Quotes should normally be 1-2 sentences, unless there are exceptional reasons. And, they should be relevant. For example, the long quotation regarding Nawaz Sharif's family history is quote UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Working on it. Towns Hill

Signature

Hi Towns Hill, your signature on the talk page post seems broken. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Time for a Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Welcoming you to the world of NPOV editing! I look forward to seeing more of it in future. Please have a Happy New Year! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi Towns Hill, you need to read and following the WP:OVERLINK page. Your text has hundreds of repeated links to commonplace terms like Punjab, Kashmir, Kashmiri etc. often linking the article's own text linking to itself! Please think before you add a link! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Towns Hill reported by User:Son of ATM (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The complaint has been closed with advice to both editors. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001–2014)

Hello! I appreciate your edits on War in Afghanistan (2001–2014). I appreciate you adding info on the support for American troops being over there, and some of the heinous acts committed by the Taliban to their own people. One item to note: "Invasion" is not the correct word, as that would indicate we were fighting Afghanistan itself. (I'll bring that issue up on the talk page though as its used other places in the article a bit incorrectly.) We partnered with the Afghani troops and were allied with Afghanistan and (other NATO countries) to fight the Taliban. I did revert one edit, due to undue weight, regarding alleged soldier rapes. If there were rapes of Afghani women, it would have been very rare, isolated events. Special Forces are not a Regular Army or Marine unit, so it's important to differentiate that. Special Ops units (Delta Force, Army Special Forces, Army Rangers, Marine Force Recon, Navy Seals,etc) use small unit tactics (operating in smaller teams), so they can go places that a regular Infantry unit cannot. Regular Soldiers/Marines would rarely (if ever) be in a position separate from their unit where it would even be possible to rape an Afghani female. Even if it was possible, it would be extremely rare. The military has very strict standards for interacting with Afghani women, and uses Female Engagement Teams (FETs/FET Teams) to speak to them, as their local religious standards do not allow socialization or contact with males other than their husbands. If you are interested in the topic, and want to make edits about this, I can help, as I was deployed over there and know firsthand. I also spend a good deal of time training Afghani soldiers and police to help them improve their tactical skills. I can't offer you detailed information to be used in your articles, as individuals don't qualify as a reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. However, where I can help is to point you in the right direction for research, and help you discern between what is truth and what is hype in the media. After I deployed my first time, was the first time I realized that despite doing research, sometimes journalists don't always understand the intricacies of what they are reporting, and and can often paint a picture that is not always accurate. We had an excellent journalist embedded with us for a time, and this particular journalist's reporting was far more accurate than many I'd read previously, so I know it is possible. Feel free to ask me any questions. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 06:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately you have reverted both edits, not just one of them. I hope you won't mind if I restore my first edit (which you have said you have no issues with). Note for the second (and controversial) edit I used the term 'alleged', so that there remain an element of doubt while also doing justice to the point of view of those who claim such abuses. Towns Hill

Ah, you have my apology. I only meant to revert one, not both. It looks like it's a WP:TROUT day for me.  Self-trout Totally understand. Just to put it in perspective, it's just such a rare thing that you would find a far higher rate of it happening among American civilians. With that being the case, it didn't seem quite right to add. Here's my recommendation: Do some more research on the topic. If you can find a few more articles that are more solid that that one (details, specific cases, etc), you may have some reason to add it. Just my thoughts. Meanwhile, I'm going to step away from the computer for a bit... Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 08:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your infobox

Hi Towns Hill, it is not a good idea to put your email address on the web. People can send you emails via the user menu. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Towns Hill

Historicity of Muhammad

Have you read the above mentioned article? Don't you think we should do something about it? I'm new to this editing stuff. I don't understand why i can't get it deleted. Even if i'd try to edit it with valid sources, the administrators would revert it. And even if this article's Subject line matches the so-called policy of Wikipedia, the content it contains is nothing but hoax! Haxeeb1987 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		Awarded for your constructive edits to improve the sources of the Wiki articles is the best work.Justice007 (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Pashtun Atrocities against Kashmiris

I think it is not possible for you to treat this topic without getting into your topic-ban area. So, you should perhaps participate in the POV fork issue on the talk page, but sign off afterwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001–2014)

Hi, I've started a discussion on Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2014) regarding your and my recent edits to that page. I look forward to working together if you wish to. Thank you for fixing my edits of citations — I did not see that these included the relevant quotes. Best BananaCarrot152 (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement notice

• There is a discussion concerning your recent editing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Towns Hill. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

When I moved your comments to your section, that was because that section is for uninvolved admins only. ie not you. Please comment in your own section, and ping admins where necessary to draw attention to your comments. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Towns Hill, I might have seriously damaged my own reputation my defending you. But you need to show some understanding of why neutral uninvolved admins have serious problems with your editing. The PROD for History of Kashmir while an ARE case is going on was quite reckless. The meaning of Kashmir is defined in its own article. I have argued about it on its talk page, but didn't achieve any consensus. You know that, I presume?

You might want to propose your own self-sanctions if you want to escape a total ARBIPA topic ban. I would suggest staying away from all controversies regarding Kashmir for a period of six months. Edit other topics where you don't have a personal stake involved and gain some understanding of how to edit from an NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. I didn't think that edit was controversial though. What kind of self-sanctions are available? Towns Hill

The edit was controversial because it got immediately reverted. Any issue that generates disagreement from experienced editors is controversial.

I suggested staying away from all controversial topics regarding Kashmir. If it unclear what "controversial" means, you can propose all topics regarding Kashmir. It is up to you. You will need to volunteer and, if the admins agree, it will get formalised as a sanction. Otherwise, you are looking at a total ARBIPA topic ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to arbitration enforcement sanctions

The following sanctions now apply to you:

You have been blocked for one week and indefinitely topic-banned from the WP:ARBIPA topic area plus Bangladesh.

You have been sanctioned per this WP:AE discussion

These sanctions are imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. The sanctions have been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read the topic ban policy to ensure you understand what being topic-banned means. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal the topic ban after six months have passed. Even if you do, you will remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. If you believe the one-week block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit a block appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC).

Tawassul

You need to discuss your "rewrite" of the article on the talk page. Some of your suggestions seem ok whereas others not. You have removed some reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia of Islam and added unreliable sources such as DarulIftaa.com. 81.159.252.117 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Tawassul.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.252.117 (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

As a registered user I do not need to discuss with an unregistered IP about an article which needed major clean-up due to excessive use of primary sources. Darul Iftaa.com is a reliable Islamic website. Please list your objections on talk instead of trolling.Towns_Hill 11:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

January 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring, recently at Tawassul. Your lack of respect for unregistered editors per your above post doesn't help either. In my opinion, if you persist in disrupting Wikipedia, after all the warnings and shots across the bows you have had, the next block should be indefinite. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 15:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I rewrote a poorly written article from scratch using reliable secondary and scholarly references and some unregistered IPs kept on annoying me by reverting my entire rewrites for no reason at all. Their reasons given in the edit summary were incorrect and unreasonably repetitive (thus indicating that IP never paid attention to my responses and kept on repeating their assertion as a broken record). They kept on saying that I was using 'dubious' sources when in fact the sources I used were completely reliable (for all to see), while the sources used previously were unscholarly and mainly primary. It takes two to tango so the fault of edit warring is on unregistered IP who kept on citing an incorrect reason to revert my great improvements to a poorly written article. You should look at both sides of the case. IP was behaving disruptively. I asked them to list their objections on Talk but they only ever kept on reverting with the same reason and annoyingly called my sources 'dubious' even though I told them that the sources I am using were reliable secondary sources. I even attempted a 'compromise' with IP by including their favourite 'Encyclopedia of Islam' source to my rewrite (as IP demanded on talk page) and that should have allayed IP's concerns but instead it continued to seek my entire heavily referenced rewrite to get reverted. This unblock is completely unfair.

Decline reason:

You were indeed edit-warring, which you admit. You try to justify your edit warring, but edit earring is not allowed even if you are right and the other user is wrong. (see WP:EW: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable"). Also, see WP:NOTTHEM. There is no indication that you understand your mistake or that you will not repeat it if unblocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

By the way, you violated your topic ban with this series is edits. You may not edit anything related to Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh. Be more careful in the future please. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you should remember that wiki policies are supposed to be corrective rather than punitive. Violation of a topic ban in my edit on that page might have been by mistake as the actual topic was broad and I was dealing with a broad topic instead of a Pakistan-specific topic. I think you are clutching at straws to prove a point instead of co-operating with me as a fellow Wikipedian.Towns_Hill 02:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I mention it because i noticed it. I'm not filling an enforcement request or anything as, like you say, you weren't being disruptive and it appeared to be a mistake. But it is covered by the topic ban. Just be careful to adhere to the topic ban please. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

SPI

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, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Towns Hill. Thank you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)