The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for your this edit on Desi daru which helped article to improve in some manner. Cheers! -- Human3015Send WikiLove  01:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried about your health, wishing you the best of luck. I hope that you return to Wikipedia soon. Faizan (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your kind words. I am sure this beer will get me on my feet pretty soon:). All I miss, now that I am unable to edit, is the fun one can have in editing this wonderful encyclopedia and contribute for its betterment.—TripWire ^talk 10:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Once again Thanks for the Information and I think that was about you .HIAS (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: That was threat. I think Human3015 is all set to e-punch you :) —TripWire ^talk 05:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 | 14:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been observing the activity of MBlaze rather suspiciously on different articles, Indo-Pak 1965 war being one of them. Can he be nominated for a block for being a POV pusher? ThanksDelusionMBT (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for approaching me, but as you know at Wikipedia our activities are not hidden, so everyone can form an opinion regarding another editor. If you think, and its your own opinion, that the person in question is a POV pusher, you may take the matter to ANI. Here I will also suggest that you should refrain from approaching other editors regarding the conduct of editors you may be in conflict with as it is undesirable. Instead you may ping an Admin for the same. WP:CANVASS clearly forbids this. Thanks—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you trip wire, it surely is a learning experience for me can you please tell me how can I take the matter to ANI?DelusionMBT (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been subjected to an SPI. If that's what you are planning to report, I'd suggest that if you are not a sock, you should relax as it's within everyone's right to initiate an investigation if he/she has credible evidence. You can raise your concerns at the SPI though.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help and your response. DelusionMBT (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned banned socks are targeting you my friend and they have the admins on their side this time I suggest you also file spi against the already well known socker D4iNa4 aka YogeshKhandke hes back to his edit war ways anyway so find a neutral admin and report his pov edit wars. Ever since the socker Mblaze was exposed the Indian pov pushers have gone crazy. Good luck! 2.125.124.55 (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper accounts such as Capitals00 are also suddenly voting for your to get topic banned. Just file a counter request and get them topic banned. 2.125.124.55 (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TW, I was not focussing on the merits of the arguments or individual behavior, rather it was just a reminder to not get carried away by reverting each other like before. I certainly didn’t mean to target you or mean any disrespect. I hope you take it in the spirit it was intended. Cheers. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your concern. Thankyou—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		Its hard to name one page because your contributions are exceptional across the board but I have been watching the recent edit history of Balochistan conflict and kudos to you for standing up against bullying, POV pushing and tag-teaming. Thanks for upholding the neutral values of Wikipedia against this onslaught. I wish that I had more time at hand to help improve that page further which I intend to do some day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou @SheriffIsInTown: for this support, I needed it. .—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 01:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you be able to translate what it says in this image? The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. "Mrs Hijab Imtiaz Ali. You were the first Muslim woman who received flying certification."—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 10:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so very much. Khair Mubarik.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 13:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please note that, as an administrative matter, I have partially reverted your latest edit [1][2], as the largest bit of text that it reinserted was clearly not "sock-free" as you described it, but had been originally inserted by yet another sock [3]. That paragraph was also quite openly tendentious, in poor English, sourced to an unreliable blog, and DS was probably right about one thing at least, there were copyvio passages in it, so I'd ask you not to reinstate it further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for that, sir. I were to do it myself but got busy with filing the SPI. The article is otherwise poorly sourced, with blogs et al, will try to improve.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Sir, I have added some links/ref as suggested, also made minor changes without affecting the overall context of the section. Please review it if you like.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above user seems to but in and push a pro Indian pov by manipulating wiki policy he has added Indian pov to Pakistan related articles. I think their needs to be a discussion of his POV and possible topic ban on Balochistan and Pakistan related articles. He also uses socks to create disruption on articles then hides behind policy of "taking responsibility" its a vicious cycle of sock edits and Kautilya backing them once they get blocked. Take this to ARB. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my ds alert, above, to you strange, I made it because I am concerned about several aspects of your recent editing. Please don't make talkpage headers about other users, especially not in attack mode, as you did here. (You have been civilly warned about the same thing before, which you blew off as an "attack"[4].) Comment on content, not contributors, and see also WP:TALKNEW. Incidentally, are your several garbled spellings of Kautilya ("Kuatilya", "Kuatilay", "Kuatliya" [sic] — pretty much different every time) deliberate? I wasn't sure, but when I then saw you type "Sutish" for "Sitush" several times on WP:ANEW[5], I certainly got the impression that this is something you're doing deliberately to show disrespect. Whether or not, it's pretty rude to not bother to get a user's name even approximately right. I'll be interested to see what you can do with my own name... but seriously, please stop it. Another point re your postings in the WP:ANEW thread: mostly people complain if their opponents criticize their editing (reasonably, as the opponents are speaking in their own interest.) But you, by contrast, complain when uninvolved editors criticize you. That's unusual to say the least; uninvolved commenters are considered the best kind. Please interact civilly with users in this sensitive area. Bishonen | talk 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Whereas I do accept my mistakes and promise to abide by your instructions and try my best not to repeat them in future. But just so that I am heard and things are brought on record, I would like to say the following:

• Whereas it was perfectly fine for Kautilya to make talkpage headers about other users by naming them i.e "TripWire reverts" despite that there was no such bait when I opened the talk-section initially and used a perfectly fine and content related header i.e. "Pakistan in 1941?". But when I do what Kautilya had done first, I alone is at fault.
• Whereas it is perfectly fine for Sitush to use a sentence like WTF are you on about, TripWire? while addressing me and twist my name by using a edit-summary like actually, forget it - let TripWire trip themselves up but my genuine/innocent mistake of getting editors' spelling mixed up is taken as a personal attack. Nothing is said about the personal attack directed against me which includes "deliberate" usage of slang/abusive language and name calling, rather my pointing it out to the editor that he should refrain from personal attacks and suggesting him that he should participate at the concerned talkpage is instead used against me here as if I blew it off even though Sitush lost the moral authority to caution me when he had first WTFed (sorry, didnt know how else to put it without sounding more absurd)and name-called me twice.
• Whereas I receive a DS alert for violating a simple TGP, but Kautilya who displays obvious bias by using a contentious phrase like "Pakistan-controlled" for AJK and a neutral phrase (Indian-administered) for Indian Kashmir in the same article in back-to-back edits does not even receive a slap on the wrist.
• I do agree that uninvolved editors are the best but I must point out that Sitush though having never interacted with me over content disputes ever have always been available to comment against me at various notice boards. And I still consider that the outburst he displayed at Kautilya's talkpage was unnecessary.
• You have referred to the AN3 and it seems that you must have gone through it. What worries me is that whereas you pointed out of the report that I spelled Sitush's name incorrectly, but you had no opinion about the report itself, that was the report even legit? Did the report even merit attention by Admins? Was it by any definition of edit-war a violation of 3RR? What happened to the "scrutiny of complaint's behavior?" All I could wonder is what had happened if I had been the complainant or is that how similar improper reports are dealt with at AN3?

Having said the above:

• I genuinely apologize for the spelling mistakes that I had made while addressing other editors as you have pointed out and will apologize personally at their talkpages [6] [7]. I believe, Hindi not being my first language (both Kautilya and Sitush are Hindi language words), but as I do have a fair understanding of the same, I tend to write their names as I pronounce them, and hence the mistake. I know, this is a lame excuse but that's what might have caused the error and I assure you that there's nothing ill-faithed about this.
• Lastly, I never have had any problem in taking "positive" advice from senior editors and will take yours as such while I try to reconcile my mistakes.

Thankyou.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 04:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush is not to my knowledge a Hindi word. Indeed, it is a completely made-up word. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sums up my understanding of Hindi language, and hence my 'grip' over its pronunciation thereof. Aatish (Hindi/Urdu), Nitish (Hindi)-->Sitush (Hindi??), darn my extrapolation! —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 08:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. It is that sort of extrapolation that landed you with the arbitration restriction regarding casting of aspersions. So, for the avoidance of doubt, you should also be aware that I am not even Indian, nor of Indian ancestry. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, it is now you who are extrapolating the issue unnecessarily. I was not reported at the AE for what you say, though the sanctions do apply. Thanks for participating at my talkpage.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 09:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should refactor your "Fake citations" heading. I looked through the citation and the editor has quoted it correctly so the citation is not a fake one. Based solely on the citation the 'compared to' conclusion does appear to be incorrect, and that's something you should point out, but it doesn't help when you label an editor negatively. --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Sure. But sir, doesnt WP:FAKE say the following:

• 2-Off-web references that do exist, but the meaning of the source text differs significantly from the information claimed by an editor (editors can summarize what a source says, but the meaning cannot be changed)
• 3-Off-web references that do exist, but the book or journal makes no reference to the topic referred to in the article

Isnt this how the citations were presented by the editor?

The essay further define these kind of citations as following:

The most dangerous types of fictitious references are types 2 and 3. With type 2, an editor with POV can change the intended meaning of the content that is purportedly sourced from the book or magazine. This corruption of the source's intended meaning may stay in Wikipedia until someone can check the original book or magazine.

Whereas type number 2 is used for adding POV, type number 3 can be used to introduce hoaxes and other false material into the encyclopedia.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, WP:FICTREF may be he correct term, no?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But that assumes you think the editor is trying to game the system. Perhaps they are merely not interpreting it correctly. --regentspark (comment) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will change it. Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarak! Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid.

And many more!... 🐄🐐 Mar4d (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khair Mubarik dear. Thanks—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 22:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 13:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.

You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion.

This topic ban 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. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard after six months of positive contributions to Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello

I have had the page in my watchlist and i saw recently an edit by an unregistered IP address changing the wording "administered by india" to a state of india. i reversed that change because as the talk page extensively mentions how you accepted that wording back in 2016. I sided with the page that was already written and not some recent edit. Apparently another user got ahead and reversed my edit stating how i was "politicizing" the issue and that in their "opinion" the edit was justified. I would love to have you come into the discussion because i believe the initial edit was vandalism because no one wanted that change and it was already established to keep the word. I am asking for a civil discussion, then we could do a sitewide rfc or dispute resolution...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Valley

Mhveinvp (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TripWire:

I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. In one of my subjects, I am editing and updating the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement article. I saw that you edited a similar article (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) and was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some feedback and help me improve the article I am editing.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! :)