Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Carpimaps was:

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

All of the citations besides Effie Pakistan is connected to the subject or does not mention this person at all. We need sources that give a lot of coverageHowever, I am not sure if Effie Pakistan is reliable. You can go ask atWP:RSN.

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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Muhammad Usama Qureshi 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 andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Carpimaps^{talk to me!}08:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Fiction2Facts!Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Carpimapstalk to me!08:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Docentation (talk)18:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you respond at that noticeboard if you want to keep your editing privileges. The specific thread isIshaq Dar: edit warring and potential sockpuppetry --A. B.^{(talk •contribs •global count)}00:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into the vandalism going on unabated in the mentioned article:

1. After I am blocked, federal ministries of His Excellency Ishaq Dar have been name-distorted by Docentation to first, second and third Sharif ministry. This is unlawful and tantamount to character assassination as he is Federal Minister of Finance & Revenue of Pakistan.
2. The aforementioned editor has deleted another 11,000+ characters after they deleted 7,000+ characters yesterday. They have deleted 18,000 characters.

This is unlawful to say the least. The Government of Pakistan should take notice of the mala-fide & bona-fide vandalism. Please look into it.Fiction2Facts (talk)09:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fiction2Facts, please seeWP:NLT. Any further insinuation that other editors' conduct is illegal, or that it should be looked into by outside authorities, will lead to animmediate site-wide block.Abecedare (talk)21:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I request that we get back to the version before the deletion of 11,000+ and 7,000+ characters; and, discuss and edit point to point to preserve a very important article that affects millions around the world.Fiction2Facts (talk)05:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There’s nothing preventing you from, even at this juncture, making a specific argument based on Wikipedia policy about a specific part of my edits. You’ve been invited repeatedly to do that. You clearly aren’t going to have the revert made in one go before actually giving the promised substantive argument, so why not make it now?Docentation (talk)14:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate it. I need to be unblocked though.Fiction2Facts (talk)15:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fiction2Facts, you are blocked from theIshaq Dararticle. You are still able and welcome to editTalk:Ishaq Dar, where you can raise objections to other editor's edits or propose your own. Try to be specific though, as in "Please restore the sentence X because Y", where Y is based on some source, grammar or presentation issues, or wikipedia policy. Just arguing for restoration to your preferred version because the "article affects millions around the world" isn't helpful.Abecedare (talk)15:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing certain pages (Ishaq Dar) fordisruptive editing andedit-warring, including whilelogged out.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk)06:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related toIndia,Pakistan, andAfghanistan, a topic designated ascontentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully andconstructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Abecedare (talk)06:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SeeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ishaq_Dar:_sockpuppetryDocentation (talk)03:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fiction2Facts. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Muhammad Usama Qureshi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.✗plicit14:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC