Hello, Bookishness, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks, User:Loriendrew! :) --Bookishness (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bookishness! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bot. --Bookishness (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Quartiere Campo dei Fiori may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The Villaggio Campo dei Fiori was built in 1919 by the Social Housing Institute (IACP)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aler.mi.it/interne.aspx?codice=3 |title=ALER</ref> in response to the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has an inuse tag, please don't edit until I'm done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User:Fowler&fowler. I did not notice it. I will bear that in mind. :) --Bookishness (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to point out that you are presenting a Pakistani Muslim point-of-view, which is clearly visible in your calling Direct Action Day a day hoped by Muslim League to be peaceful when it is a well-established fact that it was designed to be a violent and in Jinnah's words "unconstitutional" "war".--Bookishness (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Partition of India. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. SMS ^Talk 02:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet of any user. Pakistani revert editors, in particular, User:Smsarmad a renowned edit warrior and master puppeteer[1] himself wishes to make no contributions to articles and reverts and starts fishing for whoever he disagrees with, for sockpuppetry. He is prone to promoting Pakistani POV, such as here [2], reverting significant referenced content with a pithy "per WP:NPOV" edit summary here [3] and using personal attacks, such as here [4]. It is clear that other Pakistani editors like User:Darkness Shines are in cahoot with him and make vulgar remarks[5] on the Wikipedia when good-intentioned admins do not yield to their agenda. Pakistani editors are consistently removing well-referenced content. I urge the administrators (other than User:Elockid) to maintain neutrality on the Wikipedia and not let partisan groups dominate an article like the Partition of India.

Decline reason:

SPI report shows fairly clear evidence of socking. Any further appeals should be made from the primary account regentspark (comment) 01:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.