User talk:Veritasphere/Archive 2

 

A tag has been placed on Jayda al-Sindhi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. Tompop888 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  Hi Hammadsaeed, I'm KGirlTrucker81, and I noticed you made an edit to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. Your request was either empty, had elements missing, or the edit did not belong at WP:AFC/R, so for now it has been removed. If you would just like to experiment, please use the sandbox instead. When you feel ready to file a new request at Articles for creation/Redirects, you can simply click one of these buttons:

If your aim was to create a new article, I recommend you use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Please make sure you also read Your First Article and the Tutorial. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Shah Aqeeq Baba, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed 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. HyperGaruda (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shah Aqeeq Baba is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Aqeeq Baba until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammadsaeed, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 

A tag has been placed on Syed Abdullah Shah Bhukari Jalali Baba requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. reddogsix (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 

A tag has been placed on Hazrat Syed Mohammad Sharif r.a requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. reddogsix (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I noticed that in this edit to Draft:Usama Saeed, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Aqeeq Baba, you may be blocked from editing.

You may absolutely not change other users' comments to deletion discussions, to make them say something different from what the user posted. bonadea contributions talk 07:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In addition:

• Please stop posting to user talk pages asking people to come and "save" the page. This is prohibited per this guideline.
• The deletion discussion will normally continue for seven days. Please stop disrupting it. If you have new information that does not have to do with how important the page is (you have posted that already, repeatedly) you can add it to the discussion; otherwise, please allow other editors to give their opinions and discuss the article calmly.
• Do not create or use more accounts to edit Wikipedia, especially not to make it look like more people agree with your point of view.

Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assia Abdullah.

You have been very specifically warned against violating this guideline and yet you start posting to other AfDs asking people to "vote" for "your article" (it is not a vote, and nobody owns an article). Stop this behaviour immediately. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 08:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked you for continuing to canvas editors after explicitly being warned not to. Your current block is for 31 hours; if you repeat the behavior afterwards, it will likely be a good bit longer. Once the block expires, find a notable topic to work on, and abandon this attempt to "save" the article you wrote. Vanamonde (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 

The article Syed Abdullah Shah Bhukari Jalali Baba has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This page can re add??

Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 

The article Hazrat Syed Mohammad Sharif r.a has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Undelete plz Hammadsaeed (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so when the block expires. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

Veritasphere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hammadsaeed". The reason given for Hammadsaeed's block is: "Vandalism (HG) (3.1.21)".

• Blocking administrator: Wtmitchell (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #17652 was submitted on Mar 01, 2017 08:44:17. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock me

Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=I will never do sock puppetry you can block my all my accounts except this one I just want to save my page [[Shah Aqeeq Baba]] and edit my page because of information but I'll never do silly things I do this things in past because I really don't know the Wikipedia rule about sock puppetry }} Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will never do sock puppetry you can block my all my accounts except this one I just want to save my page Shah Aqeeq Baba and edit my page because of information but I'll never do silly things I do this things in past because I really don't know the Wikipedia rule about sock puppetry

Decline reason:

It's clear you're only here to promote this article. The constant unblock requests, sock puppetry and overall non-understanding of how Wikipedia works leads me to decline this request. As many others have stated, pleas ewait 6 months, without editing, without socking, and come back to request an unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2017 (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.

It would be for the best if you do not edit/create any of the deleted pages mentioned in the deletion notices on your talk page. Have you other areas that interest you? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

OH, my. Many of your edits were reverted and you were blocked for some of those. It would be best to avoid editing in such a manner. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes because in past i have made unreferenced articles and made many useless edits thats why these edits were reverted and articles were deleted. I did sockpuppetry in my initial period on wikipedia, i am interested in Urdu wikipedia there i have made constructive edits and translated/made some articles and still working on Wikiproject Christianity of urwiki.I assure you i will avoid editing in such manner. ---Bukhari (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: while I respect any decision by English Wikipedia admins, I as one of the bureaucrats on Urdu Wikipedia have to admit the highly constructive nature of his edits there. He's very active, cooperative and understanding. --Muzammil (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE -In lieu of the creation of another sock account today (see User:Hammad Ibn Saeed) this block has been extended indefinitely. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}} Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will never do sock puppetry you can block my all my accounts except this one I just want to save my page Shah Aqeeq Baba and edit my page because of information but I'll never do silly things

Decline reason:

This was not accidental. This was a deliberate decision by you to set up multiple accounts. And you did so to votestack and to engage in block evasion. You have shown you have no intention of following Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The best hope for you, and it's a slim one given your abusive behaviour, is to go for WP:SO. That means staying away from Wikipedia for six months. I want to be very clear here, no more editing. No more accounts. At all. ZERO. If you are caught setting up any more accounts, you will not be eligible. Yamla (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2017 (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.

Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry User: Bonadea Sorry User:Boomer Vial SorryUser: Cactuswriter Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry User:Cactus writer Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry User:CactusWriter Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe you. Your behavior both before and after you were blocked, as well as your refusal to click the numerous links to WP:SOCK (which I suggest you read) is more than enough proof that you do not understand why sock/meat puppets are NOT allowed, especially in lieu of AfDs. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oath of God now I never do this I mistakenly make more one fake puppet last night User:Hayemet sorry for that but now I understand the rules of Wikipedia and sorry for that because I use Wikipedia just from 2 months so I really don't know the rules of Wikipedia . Now you can believe I'll never do if I'll do so why I say truth about my fake puppet User:Hayemet Now I m sorry user:Boomer Vial But sir unblock me so I can edit my page with some information

Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I understand sock puppetry The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper use is called sock puppetry Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Understanding the policy now is not going to excuse your past violations. I am not an administrator, so I have do not have the permissions required to unblock you. If I were an administrator, I would deny your request solely upon the fact that created yet another sockpuppet despite the numerous amount of times you were not only linked to WP:SOCK, but SOCK was also explained to you in detail by multiple editors. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sir can you please suggest my unblock appeal to an administrator?? Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

user:Boomer vial Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Boomer Vial? Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hammadsaeed, please be patient. When you post an unblock appeal using the template you used above, your name shows up to administrators and nobody needs to tell them in any other way. Remember that we are all volunteers, we do this in our free time, and that includes the administrators. Asking repeatedly for an unblock before the first request is addressed by an administrator does not speed anything up, but it can become disruptive. Again, please exercise some patience. It could perhaps help if you could describe or give examples of edits you would do if you were unblocked. --bonadea contributions talk 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Mam User:Bonadea I'll add family Lineage of Shah Aqeeq Baba because he was the descendants of Ali And I'll add Hijri date of birth and death And some addition in Life portion And something more... Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And I'll make new page of Shah Aqeeq's brother pages and also his father page please mam unblock me Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And I'll write the stories of some-people who has cured spiritualy by annuctiations in Shah Aqeeq Baba Shrine Hammadsaeed (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And i love to edit Saints page because they are friends of God 😊 Hammadsaeed (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #17668 was submitted on Mar 03, 2017 09:33:24. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you not read the response that Bonadea left? Do you not understand that asking using the unblock template before the first request is addressed by an administrator does not speed anything up, but is disruptive? This continued behavior confirms that you do not understand, or care to attempt to understand why this behavior (sockpuppets, multiple unblock requests, harassing editors to vote to keep your AfDed article, improperly using your ability to vote on AfDs) is why you were originally blocked. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 11:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If Boomer I really not understand the policies so why i say the truth to you about my last sock puppet??? Oath of God Again I'll never do this.But i want to edit my page.and Sufis page Hammadsaeed (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Understanding the policies and guidelines is not the same thing as confessing to violating it in an last-ditch effort to regain the trust of the community. Until you have read over the main guidelines and policies (particularly creation of articles) in full and understand them all, you will not be unblocked. I believe your sincerity, but you have to understand that

1). You have to actually read the policies before you edit, to make absolute sure you're not editing tendentiously. Otherwise you will run into problems, especially with things that are taken more seriously, such as AfD. Wikipedia is not a playground, a war-zone, a soapbox, a forum, or a place to promote one's own views. It is a place that a lot of people contribute to preserve, and build upon an encyclopedia of knowledge.

2). You do not understand why the article you created was suggested for deletion, thus your continued promises to further edit the article if you were to be unblocked. I suggest, again, that you; read WP:V/WP:RS; abdicate any further attempts to further improved upon the article in question and find another to contribute to Wikipedia; and redact this[1] statement.

3). Based on behavioral evidence, your block has a small likelihood of being repealed. You're just going to have to accept this, and take the standard offer. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 11:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It mean you are not unblock me right user:Boomer Hammadsaeed (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Boomer Vial Hammadsaeed (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll Wait if it was 6 days but 6 months are you out the worldHammadsaeed (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't have a choice. The only other option is being blocked indefinitely, as well as range blocked. Your choice. I am not an administrator, see this[2] post by the reviewing administrator whom denied your request. Yamla There is one more unblock request here, which you can just close as it's a duplicate. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 12:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated unblock requests are abusive. I have revoked your talk page access. Another administrator will be along shortly to close off your open request. Assuming that request is declined, you are free to apply for an unblock in no less than six months, using WP:UTRS, if but only if you have stayed away entirely. Once again, you will not be eligible under WP:SO if you are caught, even once more, violating your block. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hammadsaeed, Yamla warned you on 3 March 2017 at 12:00 and 12:20 that editing Wikipedia before 6 months had passed would nullify any chance of appeal, yet you started again within a few minutes by editing with the account Rehman Badami. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Because of Hammadsaeed's continued block evasion and threats, they are quickly heading toward a permanent ban and certainly have demonstrated unblocking them in the near future would be a terrible idea. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #17684 was submitted on Mar 05, 2017 08:06:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yamla CactusWriter This one might have to be bumped to a global block, as Hammadsaeed is up to the same old tricks on the Simple English version of Wikipedia. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, Hammadsaeed has been so abusive here that they are locked out of even UTRS for a full year, which practically means they are banned. I certainly think the user is heading toward the same on the Simple English version, but they aren't currently blocked there. And I don't have permissions to globally block a user. So I'll leave it for now, but I expect they'll be kicked out there in short order, too. --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Boomer, sorry, but I'm neither active on Simple English nor am I familiar with Global actions. Global actions can only be taken by Stewards. If Hammadsaeed continues with violations across other wikis, than a request can be made at m:Steward requests/Global. (Global blocks are on for IP addresses only, so it would require a Global Ban, I believe.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

CactusWriter Could you take a look at the Simple English Wikipedia version of Shah Aqeeq Baba for me? I'm not sure if the references included actually do help to establish notability of the subject, or if it is an exact replica of the page deleted here on this version of Wikipedia. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving reply to your talk page. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #18363 was submitted on May 24, 2017 07:09:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This user has now been banned from WP:UTRS for a period of one year. --Yamla (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

It's been a long time since I was blocked. I was communicated by the admin who blocked me that I could ask for revoking of this block after six months. During this period, I've learned the main reason the block on me i.e. sockpuppetry. I assure everyone that I will not resort to this in future. I also assure positive and constructive edits as well as a friendly approach for all my fellow Wikipedians. Bukhari (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per discussion on the noticeboard, as linked below, you do not qualify for the standard offer at this time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2017 (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.

I have taken your request for the standard offer to the administrators' noticeboard. This is now up to the community. GoldenRing (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Note here is a permanent link to the discussion: diff. GoldenRing (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Thank you for raising my request to the noticeboard and @Hindustanilanguage: thank you so much for this and many more comments. I am quite upset with @KrakatoaKatie: for "These edits share a similar focus on Sufism", i am not interested in sufism now, Currently i'm active on urwiki and i started Christianity project on urwiki and wants to complete this template red links and many more (John of Damascus on urwiki). I have requested here with good intensions and i waited for six months without sockpuppetry, but some of users are not agree with me. I assure you (all opponents) i'll not do any mistakes (vandalism and sockpuppetry). Mistakes can be happen after all i'm a human being. Give me second chance and a last chance i assure you all i'll make constructive edits, in case of sockpuppetry or vandalism confirmation any admin can block me indefinitely.Bukhari (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@BukhariSaeed: As there is a discussion at AN, it would be inappropriate for any administrator to unblock you without consensus there. However, I think it unlikely that consensus will now emerge given the statement from a checkuser. When you say, "in case of sockpuppetry or vandalism confirmation," I think that the statement Katie has posted at AN would normally be regarded as exactly that sort of confirmation (though I am no expert at sockpuppet investigation). I am sorry for you, but that is how I read the situation now. If you have comments to make in response to the CU statement, please post them here and ping me and I will transfer them to AN (within reason). GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

As predicted, that discussion has now closed because the CU evidence is considered conclusive evidence of socking. You must have made no edits to English wikipedia for six months for the standard offer to apply. In accordance with our blocking policy, because your block has been reviewed at AN and you remain blocked, you are now effectively site-banned. I can only recommend that you actually stay away from enwiki for at least six months and then try again. GoldenRing (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: i'm really upset. @Dragfyre: blame me for this ip (39.50.199.46), you can check the ip WHOIS gateway report the ip is using "PTCLBB-PK" network while i'm using FIBERLINK-PK network net and also can @KrakatoaKatie: give me september ip's for WHOIS test?---Thanks-- Bukhari (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Samee: thanks alot for making Imam-ud-Din Shahbaz on my request can you please write this article in detail? Thanks in advance. :) — Bukhari (Talk!) 14:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to complete the article in draft namespace before moving to main-space but couldn't do so. I'll complete it later.  samee  ^talk 14:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I really want to complete this article but unfortunately i can't :(, BTW best of luck for article completion :) Thanks — Bukhari (Talk!) 14:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This resets the six month counter. The soonest you can apply for an unblock is now 2018-07-24. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok Yamla i'll

& Samee please add some more content in (request for block evasion removed by administrator) — Bukhari (Talk!) 14:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you are continuing to request others edit on your behalf, in violation of WP:BLOCK, I am locking down this page for six months. --Yamla (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

During the past several months i have realised that i have committed mistakes and i will not repeat the same mistakes (i.e. sockpuppetry, violation of WP:BLOCK, bad behaviour) and i assure that no harmful or destructive activity will take place no sort of vandalism, no sort of sock puppetry or any type of rubbish stuff will be seen.— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; the community discussion linked below will determine whether the block will be lifted. Huon (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2018 (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.

If you want me to, I can copy that request to WP:AN for a community review. Given your history and the past community review, personally I think it's likely not sufficient to convince people, though. Huon (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: Please copy my request for standard offer to the administrators' noticeboard. Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 06:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Huon (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023:, i was not convassing him, i find his edits on اللو ارجن, thats why ask for his e-mail or phone, i want to add him on Urdu Wikipedia whatsapp group, and he gave me his email address. If you dont trust me you can confirm from any Urdu speaker. Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: Please put my message here, below Raymond comment— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk) 10:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:CIR. BukhariSaeed who couldn't understand WP:SOCK even after months of the block,[3] and he was asking other editors to proxy for him. It is clear that it is going to be very hard to teach him the policies and guidelines whenever he will do anything wrong. It is also apparent on Urdu Wikipedia that he is indulged in off-wiki canvassing there.[4] Above unblock request is too unconvincing because it doesn't show what he will do if he was unblocked. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl:,Please see Raymond's comment (above), and i replied to his "It is also apparent on Urdu Wikipedia that he is indulged in off-wiki canvassing there.[10]". It means "i was not convassing him [Haseebahmad1087]" on Urdu Wikipedia, I was just asking for his number or e-mail. I am very embarrassed for doing this mistake while i was blocked.— Bukhari (Talk!) 17:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

BukhariSaeed, could you tell us a bit about what kind of editing you would be doing if you are unblocked? Could you give an example of an article, or several, you would want to edit, and say something about what you would like to add or change? --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Bonadea, Thank you for the query regarding my editing interests. I am personally interested in adding more information to the articles of geography. For example, take the case of Baway Wala - What's the present info available there:

Baway Wala is a village in Punjab, Pakistan, near Tapyala. There are three poultry farms in the village and the head of the village is Haji Muhammad Sharif. His son Talib Hussain was also a poultry farmer. Now his sons Mudassar.

I think adding information such as village population, adjoining villages, etc will be more useful for this article. I would to like render a helping hand here. I will also discuss about improving existing information on the article talk page with other users.— Bukhari (Talk!) 12:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell what you want to add there along with the sources? Accesscrawl (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Accesscrawl I have two good Urdu books - Pakistan me Murdumshumari by Shams Alam and Mulk ke Kam Maaroof Dehat by Ravish Ansari. I hope with the help of these two books and many other books and online resources that I access, I will be able fill many information gaps on Wikipedia.   Thank you --— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC).

Pinging @Accesscrawl.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

See the question I had asked him and read his reply to my question. Clearly he is not able to understand properly. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point further, I've mentioned two informative books on a village in my country, in the national language of my country about the demographics and history of the place. I guess adding more information on these two - demographics and history - will further help in improving the existing information on the village, and I will be glad to do so using the available literature for the purpose. Thank you. --— Bukhari (Talk!) 17:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

Per this discussion, you have been unblocked.

NOTE

This does not mean you are off the hook. As part of your unblock, you are not allowed to edit any pages about saints or other religious figures, broadly construed. You are also not allowed to create new pages in the Article space - you must use the Articles for creation process. Both of these restrictions can be appealed after six months, but if you break either of them, or are otherwise disruptive, you will be indefinitely blocked again and you will need a very good reason to get unblocked again.

If you have any questions or doubts about what you are doing, please feel free to ask me or another administrator to weigh in on the situation. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you— Bukhari (Talk!) 03:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the blocked notice that was on your userpage because your unblocked and someone forgot to remove it Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks — Bukhari (Talk!) 12:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello BukhariSaeed,

You deleted the Arabic language in the Infobox of the country Pakistan.

I understand that many Pakistanis don`t like Arabs or the Arab language because many Arabs in countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council don`t treat Pakistanis in an appropriate manner and don`t show respect for Pakistanis. However, this should not be a reason for deleting the Arabic language in the Infobox. It is true that the Arabic language is not spoken in Pakistan (it didn`t say in the Infobox that Arabic is a spoken language in Pakistan). Nevertheless, the Arabic language is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan. The source for this information was mentioned.

So, it doesn`t matter if Arabic is spoken in Pakistan or not. It only matters if the Arabic language is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan or not.

Maybe you know that 48% of the people in Pakistan speak Punjabi as a first language and only 8% speak Urdu as a first language. But it doesn't make sense to delete Urdu and to mention Punjabi as the official language of Pakistan on Wikipedia. Because it only matters what is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan and according to the constitution of Pakistan only Urdu and English are the official languages of Pakistan.

The majority in South Sudan still speak Juba Arabic but the government of South Sudan deleted the Arabic language as an official language in 2011. In addition, the Arabs in Israel speak Arabic as their first language but the government of Israel deleted the Arabic language as an official language in 2018. These things are facts no matter if you like it or not.

Wikipedia should be based on facts and it is important to indicate always reliable sources for all information. Wikipedia should not be based on opinions. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tom112233: First of all I don't hate any one, Arabic is not recognized language of Pakistan, it's just mentioned in 'Constitution of Pakistan, 1973', Article: 31 Islamic way of life' and Arabic is used in Islamic Studies. Urdu is the official language of Pakistan. 48% of the people in Pakistan speak Punjabi as a mother tongue. Arabic is used as a liturgical language it has no special status in Pakistan. Thanks — Bukhari (Talk!) 16:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello BukhariSaeed,

Thank you very much for your reply. I am very happy to hear that you don`t hate anyone.  :)

The Arabic language is not only mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan.

The National Education Policy 2017 declares in article 3.7.4 that: “Arabic as compulsory part will be integrated in Islamiyat from Middle to Higher Secondary level to enable the students to understand the Holy Quran.“ Furthermore, it specifies in article 3.7.6: “Arabic as elective subject shall be offered properly at Secondary and Higher Secondary level with Arabic literature and grammar in its course to enable the learners to have command in the language.“ This law is also valid for private schools as it defines in article 3.7.12: “The curriculum in Islamiyat, Arabic and Moral Education of public sector will be adopted by the private institutions to make uniformity in the society.“^[1]

For this reason (that "Arabic is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan" and that "The National Education Policy declares that Arabic will be a compulsory part in the school") Pakistan gives the Arabic language a special status in the country, like Israel and the Philippines.

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed, The source you have provided is reliable. But still Arabic is not recognized language, it has a special status may be for Quranic learning. BTW Thanks for awareness— Bukhari (Talk!) 17:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello BukhariSaeed,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Welcome :)

So, we are agree on this issue, right?

Pakistan gives the Arabic language a special status. For this reason, Arabic is a recognized language in Pakistan.

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan also gives Chinese language a special status. For this reason Chinese is recognized too? [5]— Bukhari (Talk!) 04:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if Pakistan gives the Chinese language a special status, then Chinese is also a recognized language in Pakistan. But it is very important to mention the source for this information.

I would like to see that the Chinese language is really mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan. Without evidence I doubt that this information is true. Wikipedia is based on sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability ("In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.")

In case that the Chinese language really has a special status in Pakistan then this information should be mentioned in the article, as well.

So, we are agree on this issue, right?

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion recognized is not correct, we should use Auxiliary language.— Bukhari (Talk!) 09:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I favour this suggestion (a section "Auxiliary languages" in the Infobox).

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tom112233:   Done, please search for chinese also.— Bukhari (Talk!) 06:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello BukhariSaeed,

Thank you very much.

I have another issue.

I noticed that you changed the small "b" next to the word "Arabic" into "13". In the last line of the Infobox there is also a small (b) with a short sentence. So, the small "b" next to the word "Arabic" was a reference to this statement. The necessary source for the information is mentioned after this statement (source "27") in the Infobox.

Please could you check and compare both version before and after your change. Before your change, if you pressed on the small (b) next to the word "Arabic" then it jumped automatically to this statement in the Infobox. Maybe you can revert your change and test it.

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I am very impressed by your edits on the urdu wiki: was wondering if you could improve the article about the 2013 elections? Currently it only shows the vote bank rather than seats... thanks... маsтегрнатаLк 21:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciation :) ,   Done— Bukhari (Talk!) 05:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Do you have source that Imran Khan began Communication minister in August 2018? The official website have been just updated. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: yes you are right, ذرائع کے مطابق وزیراعظم کو بتایا گیا کہ جس طرح اقتصادی رابطہ کمیٹی کا اجلاس ہورہا ہے لیکن اس کے 6 وزرا کے عہدے خالی ہیں جن میں مواصلات، پاور ڈویژن، نیشنل فوڈ سیکیورٹی، نجکاری، شماریات اور آبی وسائل شامل ہیں، ان وزارتوں کے فیصلے سیکریٹری کی حد تک تو ہوسکتے ہیں لیکن اہم فیصلے نہیں ہو پارہے۔. — Bukhari (Talk!) 18:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Imran Khan was Energy or Power minister? Also, do you have the name of the current Petroleum minister? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Minister for Power Division and Ghulam Sarwar Khan is current Minister for Petroleum Division.— Bukhari (Talk!) 13:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have another question. Shahid Khaqan Abbasi was only Petroleum minister during his premiership? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Abbasi was Minister for Energy during his premiership.— Bukhari (Talk!) 14:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Indian Roads - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Veritasphere, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Indian Roads ! The WikiProject Indian Roads is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, road portal and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to Indian Roads.
As you have shown an interest in article related to Indian roads we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.Thank you for your contributions.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project ! To join the project please click here

naveenpf (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I note that you insist that Barham Salih is the 9th President of Iraq. You have also changed the sequence on the List of Presidents of Iraq. Please provide me an argument on why such an edit is viable. I have provided that Interim Presidents shall not be counted. If this logic follows then we need to add Dick Cheney to the List of Presidents of the United States since he served as an acting President for sometime. Ghazi Yawar was an interim President during the Interim Government of Iraq established by the United States. I don't see why are you counting him as the 6th President. I appreciate an answer. --Broosk (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made some changes.— Bukhari (Talk!) 14:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Great work. Thanks a lot --Broosk (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)