User talk:Dhruv2357

Hello, I'm Smsarmad. 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 Terrorism 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. SMS ^Talk 11:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder, you may be blocked from editing. Nigel Ish (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Inter-Services Intelligence, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SMS ^Talk 18:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Smsarmad, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Mar4d (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Mar4d (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to conduct yourself as you have at Inter-Services Intelligence, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. -- SMS ^Talk 08:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to report user Smsarmad for repeated reverting of articles I am editing. But cannot find the option for that. Please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruv2357 (talk • contribs) 12:00, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think the best venue for this should be Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, the place where you can have community wide input on any issue that needs an administrative action/intervention, besides asking for a particular action against any editor. Besides you can also place {{admin help}} or {{help me}}on your talk page if you want to consult an admin or any editor respectively. Happy Editing! -- SMS ^Talk 15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dhruv2357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

new username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Dhruv is my name. And 2357 is a unique number attach to it. I dont understamd what is wrong with it... LOL Dhruv2357 (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below, plus facially this wouldn't be a block-on-sight username in any event. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I am not an administrator but according to the "block log," "active blocks," and "autoblocks" links in the blue-green box above, there are no current blocks that affect you and your account has never been specifically blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your request to the correct place at the bottom of the page. I do not see any block on your account, and specifically I see no problem with your username. I do see warnings on this page regarding disruptive editing which you should take note of. When you try to edit what message do you see? Please post the wording on this page below this message. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Smsarmad, who posted a template relating to ArbCom sanctions, is not an admin, even less a member of ArbCom, and has no authority to implement the warning contained in the template, whether it be deserved or not. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for making threats of physical violence,

you have been temporarily blocked from editing. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. v/r - T P 23:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

LOL ROFL LMAO

Kindly learn correct english before you speak big words. The correct english is "threats of physical Violence"