Hi, I've placed a speedy delete tag on the 3rd one, but the first and the second seem to have some basis in fact. I have placed appropriate tags for cleanup and pov on those articles. --vi5in^[talk] 00:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop adding anti pakistan sentiments and your POV will not be tolerated every time you add i will remove Algebraic123 (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where is the original research then ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algebraic123 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring. Further edit warring may result in you being blocked without further notice. If there is a dispute, use the talk page. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you mentioned using the talk page and dispute resolution on algebraic's talk page. Take your own advice. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasnt used anything hes ignoring everything i said Algebraic123 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you for 48 hours for edit-warring on Kashmir conflict article. You can contest this block by using

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was reverting the vandalism of a pro-militant Islamist user User: Algebraic123 who was Stalking my edits and removing large sourced texts from numerous articles like the pro-Islamic programme Brass Tacks, which he now continues to vandalize with the approval of the pro-Pakistan admin who blocked me.Ontopofcosts (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since your edit warring including edits to their own talk page I'm afraid I'm not seeing any justification for your behaviour. Removing cited text is rarely vandalism. I suggest you read the guideline. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 1 January 2009 (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.

Clarification of my meaning follows: Most removal of cited text is removed as part of a content dispute or due to editorial judgement. Content disputes are specifically not vandalism. Vandalism is something designed to damage the project not misplaced edits as part of a newbies learning the project or poor editorial judgement. The exemption from 3RR for vandalism is to do with stuff like reverting page blanking or reverting someone from keeping adding the word poop etc. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion about your edit here. When your block has expired please join the discussion. Thanks, and happy 09'! Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]