Toomanyyearskodakblack

Minor edit

Hi Toomanyyearskodakblack! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Zahid Ali Akbar Khan that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Greyjoy ^talk 07:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay thank you, sorry about that it's a bad habit lolToomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to leave the same warning. Be careful about that :) – Popo Dameron talk 22:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox icons

Please do not add any more flags or other icons to infobox. There is no longer a consensus for this usage. MB 23:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you show me? Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

George S. Patton is an example. There are no flags or icons. This conforms with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:ICONDECORATION. MB 01:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You're freaking me out, you've went through every single edit i've done and changed it. Like chill it's not that serious Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello, I'm Eternal Shadow. I noticed that you recently removed content from Fazal-ur-Rehman (politician) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I did explain in the edit summary. If you go through the refs it shows that the same link is used multiple times throughout the section and its not from a neutral point of view/source because the videos are from his political parties youtube channel. Also the other videos are in Urdu with no translation. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. 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 your 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. I am going to have to go through all your edits again and remove more decorational icons. I thought you understood after the last time about this. The infobox is for only the most important information. Relatives are only put there if they are notable individuals. MB 00:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah no, i'll have to undo your edits because the icons are on hundreds if not thousands of pages. Nobody seems to have an issue with it except you. If it was wrong I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be there. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Again, you are disregarding the consensus to not include icons in infoboxes. Also, as infoboxes are only for the most important information about a topic, relatives are only included if they are individually notable and have their own articles. MB 00:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You should seek assistance at wikipedias administrators noticeboard. I don't have an issue, I was doing just fine. You should mind your own business. Still didn't address my point on icons being on thousands of pages where NOBODY has an issue except you. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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 noticeboards.
• 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. You quoted an exception that allows for flag icons on articles about military units or sports teams. That does not apply to most individuals. It does not apply to military biographies. I already gave you a link to George Patton. That is a FEATURED ARTICLE, meaning one of our best, and it has no icons. That is the example you should follow. MB 01:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Azhar Abbas (journalist). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Arshad Sharif. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khalid Shameem Wynne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Instructor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Mohammad Rizwan has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mohammad Rizwan. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2022 Pakistan Army Lasbela Helicopter Crash

Hello, Toomanyyearskodakblack

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username SunDawn, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, 2022 Pakistan Army Lasbela Helicopter Crash, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn: oh yeah sorry i meant to create it as a draft, didn't know it would immediately be uploaded. probably because im an extended user now. Thanks for deleting it. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arshad Sharif. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source for a BLP - FlightTime (open channel) 23:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Random, unreliable Youtube videos aren't but a reliable verified news channel is Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2022 (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:Toomanyyearskodakblack reported by User:FlightTime (Result: ). Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bilal Omar Khan (October 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bilal Omar Khan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Arshad Sharif. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was simply using the headline of a verified and arguably most popular news channel of Pakistan. I didn't mean to offend anyone with my edits, the top headlines said he was martyred so I put martyred. In our region we say martyr for someone who was assassinated/wrongfully killed because killed seems insensitive. I hope you understand. Thanks.

Decline reason:

None of this addresses your violations of WP:3RR and WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2022 (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.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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 noticeboards.
• 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, as you did at Shafaat Ullah Shah, you may be blocked from editing. Multiple editors have removed the icons. There is no consensus to include these. You do not WP:OWN this article. MB 17:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Maryam Nawaz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello 08:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2022 Pakistan Army Lasbela Helicopter Crash

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 2022 Pakistan Army Lasbela Helicopter Crash requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Toomanyyearskodakblack. Thank you for your work on Shafaat Ullah Shah. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Complaint about you on my talk page

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#POV and propaganda edits by user where an anonymous user has complained that your edits are not neutral:

Please stop this user @Toomanyyearskodakblack: He is involved in Pro-Imran Khan and PTI party POV & propaganda edits against the political opponent collision government of (Pakistan Democratic Movement) and also against the military Leadership.

You can respond if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I have replied on the page, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

how are they disruptive edits? instead of having a discussion on the talk page they kept reverting my edits for no reason with no explanation. How am I ACCUSING others of vandalism when that's literally what they were doing? Sadaf Naeem sourced info was removed for no reason, Toshakhana reference case sourced info removed when the case isn't referring to one person rather several people. They should've made a new page titled "Imran Khan Toshakhana case", and then on Maryam Nawaz sourced info was removed too. An indefinite block is highly unnecessary considering my contributions to wikipedia including Shafaat Ullah Shah, Bilal Omer Khan, Sanaullah Khan Niazi, etc. The admin who banned me said M.Ashraf only made 1 edit today but that's a lie if you look at the view history they made 3 edits on Maryam Nawaz. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your requests should only discuss your actions, see WP:NOTTHEM. This does not address the reasons for the block; as you don't seem to think that you did anything wrong, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2022 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I admit I did vandalism/disruptive editing and added info without proper citation on Asif Ali Zardari and Qamar Javed Bajwa on an edit a month ago. That's all I can think of being vandalism off the top of my head (please remind me incase I forgot). My edits on Sadaf Naeem I can see how they look disruptive since I kept adding info. It's a bad habit and I need to edit and publish only once and do two edits max instead of more than 3 times. Like I said previously, the infinite block is very harsh. As you can probably tell I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning things. I've familiarized myself with most of the rules in the past few days since I've been blocked and will try my best to not make the same mistakes again.

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand the definition of vandalism, which is part of the reason why you're blocked. There is also nothing wrong with making multiple edits to an article. Edit warring is problem, not making edits. Once you've read and understand the relevant policies, you can make a new unblock request that demonstrates your understanding of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2022 (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.

December 2022

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I did do disruptive editing and edit war on those pages. I have refrained from editing for a month and I've understood the policies and I would like to contribute to Wikipedia again. I had only been warned once and then permanently banned and I felt that it was unfair. Out of frustration I made a new account to contribute again. I didn't do disruptive editing or edit war after making a new account, rather I improved the quality of the pages including Faisal Sultan, Mir Sadiq. Which have since been reverted by an admin understandably. After studying the policies I now know it was wrong to edit war/disruptive edit and make a new account to edit while trying to escape a ban. As you can see I have not violated any policies since then. I have learned from my mistakes and promise to try my best to not violate these policies again. so please reconsider and give me one more chance. I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia once again. Thank you.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I understand that I did do disruptive editing and edit war on those pages. I have refrained from editing for a month and I've understood the policies and I would like to contribute to Wikipedia again. I had only been warned once and then permanently banned and I felt that it was unfair. Out of frustration I made a new account to contribute again. I didn't do disruptive editing or edit war after making a new account, rather I improved the quality of the pages including [[Faisal Sultan]], [[Mir Sadiq]]. Which have since been reverted by an admin understandably. After studying the policies I now know it was wrong to edit war/disruptive edit and make a new account to edit while trying to escape a ban. As you can see I have not violated any policies since then. I have learned from my mistakes and promise to try my best to not violate these policies again. so please reconsider and give me one more chance. I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia once again. Thank you. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand that I did do disruptive editing and edit war on those pages. I have refrained from editing for a month and I've understood the policies and I would like to contribute to Wikipedia again. I had only been warned once and then permanently banned and I felt that it was unfair. Out of frustration I made a new account to contribute again. I didn't do disruptive editing or edit war after making a new account, rather I improved the quality of the pages including [[Faisal Sultan]], [[Mir Sadiq]]. Which have since been reverted by an admin understandably. After studying the policies I now know it was wrong to edit war/disruptive edit and make a new account to edit while trying to escape a ban. As you can see I have not violated any policies since then. I have learned from my mistakes and promise to try my best to not violate these policies again. so please reconsider and give me one more chance. I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia once again. Thank you. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand that I did do disruptive editing and edit war on those pages. I have refrained from editing for a month and I've understood the policies and I would like to contribute to Wikipedia again. I had only been warned once and then permanently banned and I felt that it was unfair. Out of frustration I made a new account to contribute again. I didn't do disruptive editing or edit war after making a new account, rather I improved the quality of the pages including [[Faisal Sultan]], [[Mir Sadiq]]. Which have since been reverted by an admin understandably. After studying the policies I now know it was wrong to edit war/disruptive edit and make a new account to edit while trying to escape a ban. As you can see I have not violated any policies since then. I have learned from my mistakes and promise to try my best to not violate these policies again. so please reconsider and give me one more chance. I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia once again. Thank you. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

User:NinjaRobotPirate Hi, you looked at my unblock request before and I was wondering if you could help me with this new one. I've seen people ask you for help before and you replied so I thought I'd give it a shot. Thank you. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Like your previous unblock request, this one misunderstands what vandalism is, and it doesn't mention edit warring, which is one of the actual reasons for your block. You weren't blocked for vandalism, and I don't know why you keep mentioning that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)