Hello, Saamikhan01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete theWikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit theTeahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember tosign your messages ontalk pages by typing fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me onmy talk page, orask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!Jibran1998 (talk)17:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 😊 UsamaAhmadKhan 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'mJibran1998. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions toNA-13 (Mansehra-I) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theHelp Desk. Thanks.Jibran1998 (talk)17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How were they not constructive? I made correction to their names. Secondly I removed PPP candidate, Ahmed Hussain Shah's name as he is not contesting from NA-13 but from PK-30. How did you not find these edits constructive??? UsamaAhmadKhan 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You did not provide references, with each edit (except grammatical ones) you need to provide a reference otherwise they will be reverted even if the information is trueJibran1998 (talk)19:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Saamikhan01: I realized that you were right about PPPP candidate which I removed now but there were other problems with your edit, checkShahjahan Yousuf, the article title is based onWP:COMMONNAME for this individual, so it is better to use common name elsewhere as well, Wikipedia do not recognize anySardars. Secondly, you are moving up an independent candidate for no reason. Is he a relative or something? What is the reason?Sheriff |☎ 911 |22:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mr. @SherrifIsInTown, I addedSardar to his name because if u see the pageShahjahan Yousuf, even there it is written so. Also everywhere in his area he's known asSardar Shahjahan,similarly in his posters and in newspapers etc he's mentioned asSardar Shahjahan Yousuf, so there's no reason that you find it unnecessary. I made another change to MMA's candidate name which you reverted was also right. His name isBaseer Awan notBaseer Khan. How did u find these unnecessary??Lastly I changed order and placed independent candidate on 2nd according to the current political scenario of the area. Had he been my relative, I would have placed him on first, not second... (UsamaAhmadKhan 07:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC))

HiSaamikhan01! You created a thread calledEdits are subjected to reversion most of the times. atWikipedia:Teahouse, but it has beenarchived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussionhere. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, pleasecreate a new thread. Archival byLowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery byMuninnbot, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or{{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page.Muninnbot (talk)19:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Usama Ahmad Khan (assuming that it's your real life name) , greetings!

You have created or say registered as a Wikipedian by the usernameSaamikhan01 although you sign asUsamaAhmadKhan without linking to your userpage. If you are willing to publish the later name , please useaka. (which means also known as) after linking to your userpage .

As my sign,

Dr. Sroy(aka.ARKA) (talk)

If you are having any problem, please feel free to ask me!

Anyway, happy editing, cheers!Dr. Sroy(aka.ARKA) (talk)06:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll do it but how abt changing username, is it possible? Usama Ahmad 05:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did toSaleh Muhammad Khan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use thesandbox for that. Thank you.Saqib (talk)07:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:, that was not a test edit, the info u provided there was incomplete and making no sense abt his education, that's why I removed it. Anyways fine, I'll add complete educational details of him later. (Usama Ahmad07:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Hello!Saamikhan01,you are invited to theTeahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!Dr. Sroy(aka.ARKA) (talk)19:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding change in your username, file an request at this site.Fill out the form .

Thanks,Dr. Sroy(aka.ARKA) (talk)19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest inIndia,Pakistan, andAfghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or anypage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--DBigXrayᗙ09:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop yourdisruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did atIndo-Pakistani War of 1965, you may beblocked from editing.DBigXrayᗙ09:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Utterly biased you people are... Why don't you apply this on Indian editors when they disrupt it and do disputed edits without consensus??? (Usama Ahmad09:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable Third party and neutral sources seeWP:RS. Only Pakistan Army says that it won the war. Even Pakistani Journalists and newspapers have published that Pakistan lost the 1965 war.

1965 War from Pakistani perspective

1. Not only did we (Pakistan) lose militarily in 1965 – state propaganda aside – but we also lost our national unity in the process.^[1]
2. Pakistan observing Defence Day and marking the 50th anniversary of the 1965 war, historian and political economist Dr S. Akbar Zaidi dispelled ‘the victory myth’, saying that there can be no a bigger lie, as Pakistan lost terribly.^[2]
3. Pakistan won the war in the same way that you finish third in a two-team tournament.^[3]
4. The Pakistani military has propagated a false narrative about the 1965 war that justifies its oversized role in society.^[4] --DBigXrayᗙ10:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mOshwah. I noticed that inthis edit toAl-Qaeda, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with anedit 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 onmy talk page. Thank you.~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}21:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, andwelcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedlyreverting or undoing other editors' contributions atIndo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing thenormal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach aconsensus on thetalk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely tolose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of thethree-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.Kautilya3 (talk)13:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: and what is consensus according to you, the point on which Indians agree... No things Don't go this way. I haven't violated any of Wikipedia rule. I've added an information which is necessary to be mention. The main article ofIndo-Pakistani War of 1965 also mentions India's upper hand according to the assessment of losses and so should be onIndo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 as well. If you have any objection provide the reasonable ground or counter information or we can also go for a third opinion (WP:DRR/3O).

USaamo (t@lk)14:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the edit summaries in my reverts? If so, please tell me what would be right response to them. If not, please read them. --Kautilya3 (talk)14:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read them and what you are saying about the sources of Pakistan's edge over India in aerial war are obvious from both the neutral and Indian claims of losses which are well referenced in the article. -USaamo^(t@lk)16:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should readWP:SYNTH. It says that you are not allowed to form your own conclusion from the sources.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)16:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: I duly understand synth, you need to readWP:NOTSYNTH where synth is defined as combining reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources. Since Pakistan's edge in aerial warfare is what most of the sources mentions or imply so this is not synth. You guys need to stop this edit warring and still if you are not satisfied, we can go forWP:DRR/3O.USaamo^(t@lk)18:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest inIndia,Pakistan, andAfghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)16:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that nationalistic or racist comments likewhat you said here are strictly prohibited:

I just don't understand what is consensus according toyou people, the thing on whichIndian editors agree and what is a neutral source according to you people, the one which favours India's narrative as the only source in this discussion claimed to be neutral by you is the one which in atypical Indian analyst's tone questioning some points which itself needs verification while most of the Indian account in this article is from Indian military sites likebharat-rakshak.com,defenceindia.com andindiandefencereview.com which are not even noteworthy and thentribuneindia.com,zeenews.com,theprint.in andrediffnews.com whosecredibility is also questionable being Indian sources.

Just because I am questioning the credibility of Pakistani claims, that doesn't give you license to brand all Indian sources. I am questioning them based on reliable sources (which are either third-party or Pakistan's own generals). If you have a problem with the sources I have used, you are welcome to raise them. But you cannot take it as a free for all.

If you do this kind of thing again, you will be looking at sanctions under ARBIPA. I encourage you to look at the famousWP:ARBIPA case and check what the arbitrators have said about such conduct. --Kautilya3 (talk)22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just because I'm questioning your sources credibility or the credibility of Indian sources, it became a nationalistic attack, lol!USaamo^(t@lk)00:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did toShaheen Raza, without giving a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use thesandbox for that. Thank you.Saqib (talk)12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That content removal from page was legit, source and content removed from the article had no clarity, it's just referring to Washington Post's homepage. Clarify the source or add better one which supports that claim of her age. The only source about her age in article is of Dawn and is credible upon which we can rely. Edit summary was given there thus your reversion amounts toWP:TWABUSE. Thanks!USaamo^(t@lk)19:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why edit war? What about thisReuters news story which says she was 65 and,this andthis news story which says she was 69. --Saqib (talk)19:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did atShaheen Raza, without citing areliable source. Please review the guidelines atWikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.Stop adding unsourced information like birth place.Saqib (talk)20:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine as to age since all three got mentioned but why you are reverting other changes. Her city Gujranwala is mentioned in almost of the news stories and her full name is mentioned in a couple of news stories through an embed tweet by President and is a well known thing. Understandgood faith and stopstatus quo stonewalling. Thanks!USaamo^(t@lk)13:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Filed a report now against you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)05:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of48 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is atthe noticeboard. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)15:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a report against you about your conduct atWP:ARE where you can comment.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)05:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPashtunistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHaripur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)06:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirectUrdudaan. The discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Urdudaan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.-- Toddy1(talk)05:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello USaamo. Please move your latest post to your own section. The place where you posted is reserved for admins. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy in replying other statements filed but it's done anyhow.USaamo^(t@lk)21:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved another round of statements to your section. Please only post in your section. The next time they have to be moved, they may be removed instead --Guerillero |Parlez Moi21:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to where should I reply as I'm having a case there for first time and the subsequent statements coming in and page is changing rapidly. Anyhow got it now and will look for it onwards. Thanks!USaamo^(t@lk)21:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put all your comments in the section titled "Statement by USaamo". --Kautilya3 (talk)22:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually confused over 500 words thing, with more points getting added, statement is going beyond that limit but anyhow understood now!USaamo^(t@lk)12:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

AtWP:AE Imade an offer that the complaint about you (regarding the air war) could be closed *without* banning you from the topic. My idea was that you would make a concession about your future behavior. For example, you could offer to refrain from editingIndo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 or its talk page. You would also promise to stay away from all Wikipedia articles related to that war. In other words, some statement from you that guarantees that the war wouldn't continue in the future. So far all I see from you in return isthis update to your views. If that is your final answer on this matter, I don't see any reason to be confident you won't continue. As I said at AE,USaamo is very determined that Pakistan should be recorded in the infobox as the winner of this air war. Unless there is some change, I perceive that your reverts will continue indefinitely. That would incline me to put a stop to the reverting by banning you from the topic. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin my response to your offer was in second part of that diff that I agree to respect the process and will not change anything in the infobox without seeking consensus. I requested to be allowed this pursuit to resolve the dispute through dispute resolution process which obviously does involve talk and I believe is in no way against any policy as I'm assuring of not changing anything there without consensus. Even the edit I made to article last week was only after the discussion with editors in new section when no response came from them for a week and I notified this on talk as well. I had no intention of any edit warring with that edit which was not rightly perceived. Moreover in my response in that diff I requested the close of that RfC by the admin to be reconsidered since that is more than what was discussed as to the question. The socks comments made it flawed so it will make sense to reopen it as well and some more comments giving insight may be helpful to conclude it better.USaamo^(t@lk)20:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not persuaded by this answer. If this is the best you can do, I will proceed with the topic ban. In my comment just above I gave an example of a response that would be sufficient. You don't have to agree to that exactly, but you need to make clear that your behavior will be dramatically different in the future. I am unable to trust your judgment on consensus now that I have seen your peculiar impression of how the RfC turned out.EdJohnston (talk)21:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've said in clearest possible words about my behaviour that I will not try to push anything without consensus. Seeking dispute resolution as consensus building measure is no wrong thing to do and RfC too is not the final thing in dispute resolution process. I gave you my reason for not agreeing with how RfC turned out to be and I haven't read much policies but having an opinion about the result or dissatisfaction isn't a big deal unless one goes against it balatantly. I highlighted the flaws in RfC and it's close, some comments were done by sockpuppetry for which reopening demands makes sense and demand for admin to reconsider his close too is not wrong either considering that it was more than the question discussed.USaamo^(t@lk)21:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I earlier added a statement in my case[1] repeating my stance over the content dispute however I've a change of mind and reconsidered your offer above. Though I had already made my mind for letting go this dispute by getting banned as per the sanctions you proposed since it's been months and I also think I need a break but now I thought if it could be without having a ban mark in my log so it should be this way. I've given you assurances previously regarding respecting the process and staying away from editing that article but you asked for a do more so now I'm also assuring you that I agree with the other part about talk and dispute resolution as well and dropping the stick and and letting go this dispute. If this is the way this encyclopedia could be better so I respect it. I hope you will consider this in closing my case. Thanks!USaamo^(t@lk)16:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To have a restriction that is completely clear, you would have to agree to make no more edits at eitherIndo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 or its talk page, or regarding any wars between India and Pakistan. This restriction would apply to those topics on any page anywhere on Wikipedia, including noticeboards. Let me know if this is acceptable. You would be able to appeal the restriction after six months of trouble-free editing in other areas.EdJohnston (talk)17:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that but prefer no sanctions rather a probationary period.USaamo^(t@lk)18:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is for an indefinite sanction that keeps you from editing certain articles. The ban is indefinite but can be appealed in six months. This is not a form of probation. Granting the appeal in six months is not guaranteed; it depends on constructive editing over that period. Hope that is clear.EdJohnston (talk)18:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A day before you were recommending three months topic ban while I was insistent with my point and now an indefinite ban when you said of closing AE case without action on my assurance regarding behaviour which I gave you at the moment and then you asked further to refrain from whole topic which too I have accepted now. The only thing I've done during all this was my disagreement with the RfC for some reasons without any violation which as to your proposal I changed as well and assured to let it go so it would be better to go with that proposal you gave earlier. I didn't know that mere disagreement too can lead to here.USaamo^(t@lk)19:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under my latest proposal you can still edit articles inWP:ARBIPA so long as you stay away from the India-Pakistan wars. Under the three-month option I offered originally you couldn't edit at all in ARBIPA. If you prefer that one, I'll go with it.EdJohnston (talk)19:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was something regarding without action as well. Anyhow I already agreed to the latest proposal but why indefinite ban, why not the same three month ban in this case?USaamo^(t@lk)20:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the end of my discussion here. Let me know which you prefer, and it will be done.EdJohnston (talk)20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I already agreed with the latest proposal but I still request the reconsideration of the time frame of sanctions proposed.USaamo^(t@lk)09:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite ban from the topic of wars between India and Pakistan. The ban applies to all pages in Wikipedia including articles, talk pages and noticeboards. The ban may be appealed after six months of trouble-free editing in other areas.

You have been sanctioned for edit warring, POV pushing and makingaspersions against other editors peran AE discussion

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as anuninvolved administrator under the authority of theArbitration Committee's decision atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described atWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in thelog of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read thebanning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may beblocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process describedhere. I recommend that you use thearbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.EdJohnston (talk)16:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit toList of television channels in Pakistan appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a listshould have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia'snotability guideline. Thank you. -Arjayay (talk)07:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That entry is quite notable being a popular music channel in the country. It might had a wiki article in the past as well(unsure by which name). I've added it to the list for a reason thatEmpire AS may be interested in starting an article about it.USaamo^(t@lk)13:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@USaamo:, As I was pinged, so I'll reply. Currently, I'm gathering references to create this article. The process is almost completed. And I would create the article in a week's time. Thank you.EmpireAS^Talk!13:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinged you for the very reason. Good to know that you're doing it. I hope it's clear now forArjayay.USaamo^(t@lk)14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is a violation of your indefinite topic ban from "the topic of wars between India and Pakistan" because this liberation war involved combat between India and Pakistan.

Any further violations will be likely reported so be careful. RegardsAman Kumar Goel^(Talk)13:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ban is upon Indo-Pakistani War related pages while this page isBangladesh Liberation War, mainly a civil conflict between two wings of Pakistan;West Pakistan andEast Pakistan. The page regarding India Pakistan combat isIndo-Pakistani War of 1971 as stated on the said article as well, so it's not violation of my topic ban, I believe. Anyhow pingingEdJohnston for further clarification.USaamo^(t@lk)15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox atBangladesh Liberation War includes both India and Pakistan among the belligerents. So I consider that my topic ban excludes you from editing that article or its talk page. Please cease your editing in that area. Reminding you that lifting the ban after six months depends, in part, on whether you can edit without further trouble during that period. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)16:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to violate the topic ban, I commented there on talkpage considering it involves mainly a civil conflict between the two former wings ofPakistan which later turned hostile and at the very end Indian intervention came in. I thought the ban involves the war pages between India Pakistan which in that area isIndo-Pakistani War of 1971 but anyhow I pinged you for the very reason to clarify me on this. Thanks!USaamo^(t@lk)16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. We seem to be in agreement that you should not editBangladesh Liberation War. As regardsthe other topic,Swati (Pashtun tribe), I encourage you to contribute there if you have access to any reliable sources. The two parties who have been disputing do not seem very familiar with Wikipedia standards. The best they can do is throw around Raj-era sources, which are widely recognized here as not reliable. SeeWP:RAJ for an essay byUser:Sitush on the reliability of Raj-era sources.EdJohnston (talk)17:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the other friend isn't coming.... how to remove the block on the page so I correct it and then request for block...... you have seen him yourself how sound his arguement is. RegardsAzmarai76 (talk)17:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That edit restriction on page was added by admin because of your edit-warring on the page. It will remain there until 14 December, 2020. However if we reach a consensus on the edit dispute, we can request it to removed but not before that. I hope we'll get to a consensus soon.USaamo^(t@lk)11:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usaamo will you please look at this guy's efforts. I have tried to teach him the topic but guess he doesn't even understands English. He seems ashamed of himself even the area where this tribe has been recorded and I simply don't understand why???Azmarai76 (talk)16:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Azmarai76: I see, you've already waited so long and still we are trying to establish a consensus over the dispute. So I'll ask you to wait a little more, I'm trying to get him onboard for Dehqan origin. If it continues than we have no choice than to go onWP:AN against him, I've already alerted you both about General Sanctions on this topic. But actually I don't want any fellow Pakistani editor getting sanctioned, so we'll wait some more time and continue this discussion.USaamo^(t@lk)22:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well wish if any of his things are based on Swatis he is doing nothing else but distorting facts. He has become from descendant of Qais to each and everything..... I am spending this much time with him but seems like he doesn't know anything about his own tribe and I think he is just trying to make articles go vague nothing else.Azmarai76 (talk)13:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But let's see if he gets back to books so I will wait......Azmarai76 (talk)14:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azmarai76, I've given him anotheroption as a last resort and this is the least I could do to it. So let's wait for his answer.USaamo^(t@lk)14:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let's see but the way we have seen him and few others pasting unwanted stuff to different tribal pages I still doubt. Khostwal and every Pashtun editor is sick of this guy.Azmarai76 (talk)14:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I pray may sanity prevail among us all. We don't need to fight each other, rather try getting Pakistan related articles better, there's already so much bias as to South Asian history.USaamo^(t@lk)14:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@USaamo trying to keep it correct as much as possible but why did I pick this guy for this debate was to expose him to the ultimate as to what exactly his level of intelligence is.... he thinks only Pashtuns are humans and to be a human he has to distort facts to become Pashtun.Azmarai76 (talk)15:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at him "this will go further" makes me laugh..... is he even educated??? I think he is just a young boy and such are always ready to blow themselves up.Azmarai76 (talk)16:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at him he isn't moving an inch.Azmarai76 (talk)17:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bro the guy is just wasting time as I had told you I will wait I'm still else I have to move on to other pages. This poor soul is knitting a web for himself to make his ancestors Pashtuns maybe as he keeps doing on all pages I am leaving you this so we sum it up or do it the way it was done for Tanolies. RegardsAzmarai76 (talk)14:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azmarai76 actually I'm quite busy these days with assignments and all that stuff being from the category of students who try to save semester in the very last week, so not getting much time for Wikipedia. Seemingly, he isn't going to put down the stick, so options are on for us. This is more than a mere content dispute for which we should only go toWP:DRN. This is more a behavior problem for which either we should involve the same administrator again or also fine if we go toWP:AN but it would be better if you file against him because it was you to have this dispute with him in start. Do let me know if you are going to do this...USaamo^(t@lk)19:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will definitely if he doesn't accept your lede... now. I will even type at EdJohnston talk page.Azmarai76 (talk)19:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes do that nowAzmarai76 since he's not ready to accept a mid way out. Report to him on the verysection where you previously reported that it's not working out. I'll also come up with my take.USaamo^(t@lk)19:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have typed it on EdJohnstons talk page under Swatis if you also just type a few words it will help.Azmarai76 (talk)19:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usaamo I have done it if you also type a few words he will know .... RegardsAzmarai76 (talk)20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@USaamo I will wait for you at EdJohnstons talk pages RegardsAzmarai76 (talk)04:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USaamo seems like EdJohnston hasn't seen his talk page or he has gone for Moharam also ....HahaAzmarai76 (talk)08:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WellAzmarai76 I just came after yesterday as I told you I'm quite busy these days. Let me check and I'll also add my take over there.USaamo^(t@lk)19:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USaamo thanks I have left notes on the talk pages of other tribes also where same kind of activities have been going on since long. RegardsAzmarai76 (talk)19:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Azmarai76: you don't need to do that all for now. I suggestedWP:AN but since EdJohnston is also an admin so no need of going to any noticeboard either, wait for the outcome from there.USaamo^(t@lk)20:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USaamo I am grateful.. thanks and RegardsAzmarai76 (talk)20:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@USaamo, I guess Ed hasn't been able to do anything about the issue. What do you suggest.Azmarai76 (talk)13:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Azmarai76: it was archived because you both were not responsive. I was thinking to add a request about the article that my lead be reinstated since the conflicting parties are no more in the conflict. Anyhow for now as you're back, so let me unarchive that section and add a request, let's see what happens.USaamo^(t@lk)13:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dear Usaamo I have left Ed a note on his page regarding the sources given in at the end of this article especially as to why exactly Iranica links to mitharism were given to introduce the subtribes of these people.Azmarai76 (talk)10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedShafaullah Rokhri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageFolk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedBattle of Samana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSamana.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedKiran Malik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageModel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings,

This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussionat this RfC in year going by, and since some related aspects are under discussion atWikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk)05:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EmpireAS^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of2020 and tomorrow will be2021. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive2021. This greeting (and season) promotesWikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

EmpireAS^Talk!19:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Empire AS: thank you so very much. Saal-e-Nau Mubarak! :)USaamo^(t@lk)18:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)EmpireAS^Talk!18:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Empire AS: btw I just noticed, it says about 2022. Is it for real? :pUSaamo^(t@lk)18:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, There was a mistake in the template, when I created it. I've corrected the years and template too. Thank you. :)EmpireAS^Talk!18:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Senior AOA, subject article (Qasim Ali Shah) is not created with promotional intention. Being new-editor, myself is yet to learn how to use words/sentence in compliance with Wiki-ToS under your kind guidance. However, I respect your opinion being my seniors, therefore kindly highlight which words/sentences are objectionable for alteration/removal, thanks.U.J (talk)20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Youjay878: WS, hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry I was away for a while so couldn't get back to you on time. As toQasim Ali Shah, I voted against it's deletion and I believe the person is notable but I found the article to be not much encyclopedic that's why asked to keep it by stubifying and removing the content which is not sourced and changing it's tone.USaamo^(t@lk)07:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much Obliged, Will Keep asking for Kind Guidance.U.J (talk)20:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi USaamo. Thank you for the guidelines i really appreciate it. Could you guide me on why google stopped indexing Usman Wazeers wiki page and how i can get the wiki page verified.

AhmadKhan518 (talk)06:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@AhmadKhan518: there's nothing like verification of pages on Wikipedia. Once a page is created it goes up on Wikipedia and aPage reviewer will review it to check if it really deserve to be on Wikipedia's mainspace and is in compliance with Wikipedia polices and will then mark it as reviewed. As to Google not indexingUsman Wazeer is Google's problem, may be their algrothims are yet to get it. Though I've created a redirectUsman Wazir with common spelling of surnameWazir.USaamo^(t@lk)08:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U.A.K Bey aoa, if Aik editor ko undo krna ho bcz mujhe lag ra ke jaan boojh ke trickly kisi ki past published wiki contrOvsy Heading having 4 cites delete ki, ES me bhi reason mention nahi kiya, aap kindly mujhe IN-BX kr do ge usmanjunaid177 at jee male, seeking guidance.U.J (talk)13:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you keep saying that Wikipedia is not censored. I know this already, Wikipedia is a fantastic source of knowledge. Wikipedia requires accurate references for claims that are made. You keep telling me that "my book is censored" - I'm not sure what you mean, I'm following the link to the book by Karam Singh that you keep quoting on the Banda Singh and Samana pages. That book that YOU are referencing does not seem to contain any information to verify the claims you are making. Unless I'm missing something - in which case could you point me to the relevant pages of the book? Or if not, then why do you keep quoting that book if it does not contain this knowledge? And in that case, what source are you using for this knowledge?The pageWikipedia:Verifiability talks about the burden of proof being on the user who restores content to provide an inline citation. A user may remove content if it does not have a verifiable reference. Your claims do not have a verifiable reference. That's why I'm removing it, and asking you to provide a valid reference. Nothing to do with censorship - it's about following Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability and referencing sources.

Thanks,★Sunny_bacon★ (talk)00:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Hope you are well. I made a Wikipedia article about British-Pakistani MMA Fighter Mehmosh Raza. Could you kindly review the article. Much appreciated.Bilalbutt40 (talk)10:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Lately you seem to have worked on 'Pawri Ho Rahi Hai' too. Since last three weeks it is still in South Asian news and IMHO foresee in near future trend likely to continue in South Asia hence topic deserves independent article so I initiated aDraft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai with imported fork, pl. do see if you can help develop it as an independent article over a period of time. Thanks and RegardsBookku (talk)05:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, andwelcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedlyreverting or undoing other editors' contributions atList of Internet phenomena in Pakistan. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing thenormal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach aconsensus on thetalk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely tolose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done topunish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of thethree-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

There has been discussion on the article talk page, but you have not contributed there. Please discuss your reasons and reach consensus before making further reverts.MB13:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Mela Loot Liya cover.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under theCC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (seethis list)at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication topermissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letterhere. If you take this step, add{{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email topermissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria atWikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as{{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed atWikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add arationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. SeeWikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created inyour upload log.Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described insection F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia'simage use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Stefan2 (talk)10:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making disruptive edits. Failure to do so will lead to you being blocked from editing. ThanksAtishT20 (talk)07:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AtishT20: Before throwing vandalism warnings on others talkpages, first read whatWP:VANDAL actually is!USaamo^(t@lk)10:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally writing false information without proper sources. That's vandalism to us! Don't try and act smart ffs. Bloody hell— Precedingunsigned comment added byAtishT20 (talk •contribs)16:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AtishT20: The information I added was well sourced but still if you had objection you could have stated that with civility. Your conduct here on my talkpage is unconstructive and totally unacceptable. You're not on some social media that you'll talk to other users like this. You're required to take back these words!WP:CIVILUSaamo^(t@lk)04:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Usaamo but I haven't made any edits to this article other than adding a few good sources I came around for sake of spreading knowledge. I amnot being Ultra Nationalists or anything rather fighting against it.Regards.Azmarai76 (talk)09:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose to leave it piece the way it is. If they are Pashtuns so be it, noone cares. RegardsAzmarai76 (talk)09:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

This 8 th March GoP launched a renewed National Gender Policy Framework. If you have time can you help create article for the same. As of now I came across these 2 refs

• https://www.dawn.com/news/1679016/as-women-march-govt-unveils-ambitious-gender-policy
• https://tribune.com.pk/story/2346977/national-gender-policy-framework-launched-to-empower-women

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk)04:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I have been informed that a lady named Alia Sarim Burney is coming up as a significant critique of Aurat March. Do you have any reliable sources covering her criticism of Aurat March? may be in Urdu?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk)13:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are seen taking intrest about this movie.Satwik Shaw (talk)13:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Satwik Shaw: I watched the trailer of this film lately and haven't watched the film yet. It reminded me ofHaider (film) back then when I used to watch some Indian films and I think that was still an honest take on the topic but I heard that there was much backlash and boycott calls over it. From trailer it looks like that it is a balatant attempt to divert public attention from what is happening with Kashmiri Muslims from so long. Killings of Kashmiri Pandits was sad indeed if it happened but what Pakistanis have always been more concerned is killings of thousands of Kashmiris since the start Indian occupation which has always got overshadowed in India because it is easy to label every Kashmiri a rebel militant killed and common Indians will rejoice even Indian Muslims won't speak about it who themselves faced many genocides in India from Babri to Gujarat and most recently Delhi and Assam.

Pakistanis previously used to watch Indian movies when local movies were not much making and we have a great memory of Bollywood films especially Khan's films till mid last decade. Afterwards we've seen rise in anti-Pakistan films and films with Hindu nationalist rhetoric distorting the history and it greatly diverted Pakistanis away from Indian movies. Also now Pakistani cinema is reviving and most importantly for foreign content Turkish series has taken that place which previously was of Indian industry, so people don't much care about it.USaamo^(t@lk)16:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Your response is highly appreciated. But I disagree with your statement "to divert public attention from what is happening with Kashmiri Muslims from so long" this movie focuses mainly on Kashmiri Pandits that how they were thrown out of their home Kashmir. (but you know a fact I haven't watched it till yet). I am sorry if you don't like any of my statement (cause) don't wanted to start a fight here.Satwik Shaw (talk)16:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also I wish good luck for Pakistani cinema industry and the way it is devloping.Satwik Shaw (talk)16:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in this subject and I haven't edited it, but I am surprised to see you commenting there even though you are already told enough times that you are topic banned from this subject of wars between "the topic of wars between India and Pakistan."[2][3]

You were discussing the same subjectjust above some months which was also a topic ban violation.

You know thatExodus of Kashmiri Hindus is a part ofKashmir conflict (largely a Pakistan Vs India military conflict) and the movie's article is itself categorized underCategory:Kashmir conflict in films. That's why you can't edit articles about this movie as long as your topic ban is in place.

I would pingEdJohnston who imposed the topic ban and pingAbecedare who is apparently moderating the talk page.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)19:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI my ban is specific on thetopic of wars between India Pakistan while the said article is a film article. When you complained about me after my comment on Bangladesh Liberation War, Admin EdJohnston said that I shouldn't be editing there because its infobox mentions both India and Pakistan as belligerents, so I stopped right there. As to The Kashmir Files neither it is a war article nor do Pakistan got anything to do with it. Not even with the topic Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, film is about.

Don't make a non-issue an issue by dragging me into it out of nowhere for settling your previous grudges. You're trying to imply here that I have been violating my topic ban many times but its been two years since the topic ban and I haven't appealed it for which time was after 6 months because I was not much interested in the topic.

As to above comment on my talkpage, it was in response toSatwik Shaw's query who asked for my view regarding the film probably after seeing myedit in the article to which I replied generally from a viewer's point of view and not as an editor.

So I don't think I have violated my topic ban but still if the admins think it amounts to violation, I'll cease my editing there even though I haven't done much, just interested in developments related to it since I heard my edit and the article overall have created quite a ruckus out there.USaamo^(t@lk)18:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That could make sense if your sanction involved an "Indefinite ban from thearticles about direct wars between India and Pakistan", but your sanction involved an "Indefinite ban fromthe topic of wars between India and Pakistan".

To edit about a movie that is about Kashmir conflict where Pakistan and India are the most significant belligerents, is prohibited by your topic ban.

Together with providing the views on history ofKashmir conflict this movie, as the article notes, also depicts2003 Nadimarg massacre which was carried out by Pakistani militant groupLashkar-e-Taiba.

Now that you have replied, I hopeEdJohnston andAbecedare can share their view.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)21:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello USaamo. Back in July 2020 Iimposed a topic ban under authority ofWP:ARBIPA. In my opinion your ban fromthe topic of wars between India and Pakistan *does* prevent you from commenting atTalk:The Kashmir Files. The topic bans issued at AE are broadly construed. The situation is clear enough so that an admin would be justified in blocking you if you continue to comment on the topic of the film.EdJohnston (talk)03:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are good. Can you help me with the draft I started about activist Imran Noshad Khan in draftspace. It has been quite a while since it is there and I don't know what to do further. Your help will be much appreciated.IBuNeriPK (talk)14:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IBuNeriPK: oky I'll see to it but this draft's history shows that there might be some kind of link to your account. If that's the case you're advised to not edit the draft article again because that will be against the core Wikipedia policy of Conflict of InterestWP:COI.USaamo^(t@lk)09:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @USaamo

Adiscussion has been initiated to contest your changes wideEdit dif 1104699210 those not being in line with Wikipedia policies, you may place your point of view if you wish so.

Thanks and regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk)11:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yar quite a long chargesheet against me, you would have discussed it with me simply here without getting into the long discussion but anyway let's see where it goes now...USaamo^(t@lk)20:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @USaamo

• Template:BLP others

• WP:ONUS says ".. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. .."
• @Edit dif 1104699210 discussion you were requested to provide a proof, where in police have charged the victim Ayesha Akram for any conspiracy before court of law? Your answer to this ".. All these things are part of police file during investigation. .." does not constitute / does not equal to '.. police have charged the victim Ayesha Akram for any conspiracy before court of law ..'
• In sub judice cases, video and audio tapes do not constitute full proof evidence in themselves and usually need corroboration etc, which only courts can decide and we Wikipedians can not sit on judgement on veracity of evidence constituting video and audio tapes in sub judice cases.
• PerWP:SUSPECT, ".. For individuals who arenot public figures; that is, individuals not covered by§ Public figures, editors must seriously considernot including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. .."
• Request made for removal of contentious content un til we reach consensus @Edit dif 1104699210 discussion and raised concerns have not been addressed in almost last 6 days.
• Template:BLP others suggests to take up such cases @Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard So I am likely to take up the issue there for resolution and guidance.

Requesting your attention and cooperation.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk)11:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Baku, I think I have provided more than enough justification for my edits which were sourced to have inclusion but now you're making argument for the sake of argument. I'm responsible to give justification for my edits not how you are assuming things on your own but I have still given a pass to your victim blaming allegations on me and repeatedly clarified that I don't deny the happening of incidence but the background of it. This article should be telling all the related information published in reliable sources for NPOV. The audiotapes being part of police investigations is mentioned in the sources which are published reliable sources and none of the parties have denied them. They are obviously accepted by police that's why they are part of police file. Rest is to be decided by court of law but they are admissible evidence in courts under Pakistani law. Police is focused on the prosecution regarding the harrassment incident which obviously happened but still couldn't file chargesheet because of all the twists unfolding with the case. So as I said above if you think that matter is sub-judice and we can't include this in article then it applies on whole article not just my edits.

And being a law graduate myself I'm abreast with country's law and courts proceedings and have been closely following the case.USaamo^(t@lk)17:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @USaamo

This is to keep you informed that, regarding our ongoing discussions, a RfC discussion to seek inputs from other editors has been opened @RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk)10:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Two-nation theory (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Hello USaamo. Please seeUser talk:EdJohnston#Continued topic ban violation by USaamo. A user is saying that you have violated your topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan. You can respond there if you wish. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)15:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a report against your topic ban violations atWP:ARE where you can comment.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)03:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know better about not edit warring on2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault when your edit has been disputed on talk page. Focus on talk page and describe why the content is due for lead or even the article.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk)08:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember toassume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do onPakistan. Thank you.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)09:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been falsely claiming that I provided "misleading summary" when it is clear to anybody that by saying "restore useful edits" I was restoring the already explainededit here.

This is not the first time you have engaged in this POV pushing on this page,[4] and in fact you have no other edits on this page other than undoing my 100% correct removal of the term "regional power" because Pakistan isn't one.

ReadTalk:Regional power/Archive 5#Pakistan, where all these sources were analyzed.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)09:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)17:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to use atranscluded discussion from 2016 to overturn multiple conclusive discussions from 2018 at [[5]], then you are beingdisruptive. Do the math and readWP:CCC. You shouldn't be citing a 2016 discussion to go against 2018 consensus.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk)17:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk)15:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked temporarily from editing for persistently makingdisruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Swarm~^{sting}17:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

I'm making this request for unblocking me and if not possible for main article space then maybe a partial unblock for Wikipedia and talkpages as I need to reply on reports concerning me. Edit-warring has been done from both sides if edit history of2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault andPakistan is checked. On both the pages two editors were reverting me and I reverted them back but there was no 3RR violation from my side. On former article I was already on talk to seek further consensus and stopped reverting even before this block came as you can see I responded on talkpage without reverting after I was again reverted by them. On latter article it was upon editor making those changes to seek consensus on article talk as he was overruling an established consensus from 2016 which he didn't try and there too I stopped reverting way before this block came. So edit-warring has been stopped from my side already and I don't think this block is needed further. Anyway if only I'm blocked and it was necessary administrative action, it's fine and I accept it, maybe I also needed break so be it this way but there's an AE report concerning me as well where new responses came so I need to reply to them for which if not full unblock, maybe a partial unblock...USaamo^(t@lk)04:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, since the block has now expired. Feel free to remove this template from your talk.Girth Summit _(blether)16:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

• @USaamo:. I've been following this controversy for a while. I objected to some of the content added by Bookku about a year ago[6]. But I let the discussion run its course, not edit-warring in the meanwhile. As you can see, eventually enough users agreed and the article was amended accordingly. If you want an unblock, I strongly suggest you apologize for your reverts. Yes, others reverted too, but readWP:NOTTHEM. Dispute resolution requires a lot of patience.VR_talk05:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: you're right, edit war is highly regretted and it shouldn't have been done from my side.USaamo^(t@lk)17:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seriously debating an AN/I discussion for disruptive WP:NOTHERE behavior on top of the edit warring that has taken place. Moving and altering another editors article talk page comments crosses a line. It's a clear etiquette violation and does not signal a willingness to engage in collaborative discussion.[7] --ARoseWolf13:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf: I only meant to improve theRfC discussion at talkpage as I filed forRfC close after editors suggested for convenience of the closer and gathered relevant responses as the discussions have been quite long and messy over there perWP:TPG. As to the moving one of comment below I wasn't sure that RfC can be restarted after template was removed month prior and the editor who started it also viewed about summing it up month ago. I evenasked about it from other editor whose comment was being moved.USaamo^(t@lk)17:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked @Thinker 78 but @Thinker 78 is not the one who made the comment. Beyond that, in my opinion, you asked and involved editor whom you view as being supportive of your position further involving them and tainting their position whether they agree with you or not. Your actions from the first moment have been disruptive, from the article to the discussion. There was too much bludgeoning by both sides which has hurt discussion, which you were part of. If all you wanted to do was improve the article you made a mess of it by edit warring and disrupting the discussion on the talk page. And you continued doing it even after being warned by multiple editors. --ARoseWolf18:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARoseWolf I moved two of the comments of Thinker78 as well from discussion below where Bookku asked him about what editors viewed in RfC. He himself didn't even comment in RfC. The discussion was bludgeoned because of other party who kept on making long comments and I have to answer them.USaamo^(t@lk)08:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By bludgeoning the conversation and making it even more difficult to follow? You both were wrong for that. However, you didn't just move Thinker78's comments did you? You moved and changed another editors comments. One that opposed your position. That's the one I'm concerned about. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the placement of the comment or what is being said, it is highly uncivil to remove or move another editors comments. It is my opinion that you owe them an apology. Likewise, both you and Booku owe the community and the editors, all of them, that have tried to weigh into the fray and find a solution a huge apology. Because of your bludgeoning and edit warring we may never get the consensus or solution we could have and that's a shame. As a fellow editor and member of this community I find your actions to be unrelentingly careless, severely uncivil and very much disruptive. --ARoseWolf13:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest ingender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleSadaf Naeem, to which you havesignificantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should bedeleted.

The discussion will take place atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadaf Naeem until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visitthe configuration page. Delivered bySDZeroBot (talk)01:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you were the one who created the article Sadaf Naeem originally. Since the article was deleted, not even the edit of the creation of the article can be traced by me. I find its deletion and much more the manner in which it was executed a bit questionable, much more since no edit history of her article is not accessible. Only one of my articles was deleted so I am not so much aware if this is normal.Paradise Chronicle (talk)07:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you are T-Banned from the area India Pakistan. Do not answer into my inquiry, it could potentially lead to more discussions for you. I'll just wait for the closing admin to reply which I have also seen is the suggested procedure atdeletion review.Paradise Chronicle (talk)08:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Paradise Chronicle: I'm topic banned as of now so I can't really comment on it but just to clarify, I didn't create this article, I wrote its lede and reaction section prior to its deletion nomination. You may ask editors atWikiProject Pakistan for further help with regard to it.USaamo^(t@lk)18:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The followingtopic ban now applies to you:

All topics covered underWP:ARBIPA

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response tothis arbitration enforcement request.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as anuninvolved administrator under the authority of theArbitration Committee's decision atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described atWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in thelog of sanctions. Please readWP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may beblocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please readthe appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you._signed,Rosguill^talk21:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usaamo, I've very disappointed to see that you were tbanned from Pakistan, which seems to be your favorite subject. But now that you are, I think you should try editing other topics for the next 6 months. I see a quote on your talk page, perhaps you're interested inSufism, orIslam in general? I have edited heavily on Islam-related topics, so if you need any suggestions there, please leave a message atUser talk:Vice_regent. If you edit constructively, I think your appeal after 6 months would be successful.VR_talk13:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following a clarification request regarding appeal restrictions as part ofdiscretionary sanctions, a sanction placed against you has beenamended to remove a previous restriction regarding your ability to appeal. The archived request can be viewedhere.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖19:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might be of your interest. Pakistanblocked Wikipedia. Regards,Thinker78(talk)15:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: thanks for notifying but I'm afraid my preferential topic ban last year bars me from doing anything in this regard on Wikipedia. It has been lifted though.USaamo^(t@lk)15:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Play Entertainment logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)03:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation