User talk:Balochworld

Welcome!

Hello, Balochworld, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Fayenatic (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huntingathome.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Huntingathome.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Gaboltribe.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:Gaboltribe.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:KBABGABOLJINNAH.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:KBABGABOLJINNAH.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude ► 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Kaaba. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SardarNabilGabol1.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:SardarNabilGabol1.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nabilahmedgabol.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Nabilahmedgabol.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Allah Bux Gabol.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Allah Bux Gabol.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Benazir.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:Benazir.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "Click here to 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. Saqib (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:With Qaboos.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:With Qaboos.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "Click here to 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. Saqib (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabol

Thanks for making valuable contribution in the article Gabol. Please don't remove important information, if you have any reservation regarding any point, please discuss on Gabol talk page. Irfan Gabol (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Nabil Gabol, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nabil Gabol, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Nabil Gabol. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Saqib (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Nabil Gabol, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Nabil Gabol, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Nabil Gabol. Saqib (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Nabil_Gabol, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. byteflush _Talk 16:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Nabil Gabol. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Balochworld. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Nabil Gabol, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. byteflush _Talk 04:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose what is your connection to the subject or the Gabol family. Thank you. byteflush _Talk 04:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Byteflush: Hi. I am in no way connected to the Gabol family. I have though, read and researched about the individual and topic discussed in detail and whatever I am doing is out of voluntary free and and I am in no way receiving any compensation. Please visit the talk page of "Nabil Gabol" and see how I am being prevented from contributing. Balochworld (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You joined Wikipedia a decade ago but never contributed outside the topic. May I ask why? --Saqib ( talk) 08:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: My laptop, my internet connection that i pay for my self, my time (outside a real job and a real life). I can choose to apply it however I like. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochworld (talk • contribs) 08:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the answer to Saqib's question. Try again. Also, ~~~~ - is that so hard to remember? byteflush _Talk 22:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Nabil Gabol. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock so I may be able to take part in the discussion about the disputed article on its talk page so that my input may be considered before any changes. I regret my behavior and promise not to take part in edit warring again. Thank you. Balochworld (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't come close to address the issues raised at AN/I and shows ownership issues. Taking into account that you were blocked for edit warring before, and that there's a possibility of sockpuppetry, you'll have to do better than the above to explain why your input is that vital to that article. Huon (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

I regret my behavior and will not edit war again. The sock puppet investigation against me has been closed. I do not claim ownership of the article however I am an expert on the subject and have been a major editor on it for 10 years. There is currently an RFC on the article's talk page and since the user who I had dispute with has already been unblocked it would be unfair if I am not able to contribute while he actively is. Thank you. Balochworld (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: Events have overtaken this unblock request; you've now been blocked indefinitely for repeated false claims about copyright. Please address that issue as well in a new unblock request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi. I believe I have beeen blocked for copyright violation. I would like to clarify that I never intended to do such a thing. The images in question were uploaded 10 years ago and I may have unintentionally uploaded google map images but I never intended to falsify them as mine. I was a new editor then and may have been lazy in the copyright description. Again, I am clearly expressing that I had no malicious intention. All the images un question may be deleted but I would like to be able to continue contributing to wikipedia. I will be very careful in the future. Thanks Balochworld (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Really? Never intended to violate copyright? There's whole discussion below where you tried to claim you made some images personally when it was obviously not the case. Max Semenik (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nabil Gabol 2. Regarding this block. If you have anything to add while blocked please add it here and I'll be happy to copy it over. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I have read the discussion so far and completely agree with Observance22 Cullen328 and Ravensfire. Saqib is clearly making the article about the BLP a hit piece by including accusations that are over 5 years old. In Pakistani politics accusations come on a daily basis and are purely politically motivated. I clearly requested on several occasions that it should be removed because these accusations did not result in an investigation let alone any conviction. I thank SheriffsinTown for his effort but he will agree that the only thing all three of us reached consensus on was removal of 1990 and 1997 election results because clearly it was a common case of a candidate simply submitting nomination papers as his party's covering candidate (someone who has gotten several thousands votes in the same election cannot possibly get 24 votes at the same time). Hence after consensus a protected edit request was made successfully. Once the protection on the page expired Saqib went ahead with his own agenda and added information that was never even discussed let alone agreed upon. I did not expect this from an experienced editor like Saqib. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page but Saqib seemed bent upon sticking to his version and that is when I warned him on his talk page and involved other editors. Balochworld (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Saqib is proposing that I be topic banned because I have conflict of interest. I strictly deny this accusation. I never claimed ownership of the article either. I am however well read on the subject and have been contributing to the article for over 10 years. If anyone should be banned from the topic it should be saqib as he made a decade old article unstable and controversial. Further, one of the comments above by "Faithfullguy" appears to be sock-puppetry by Saqib. I request that SPA investigation be initiated against Saqib as Faithfullguy has been blocked already and was used while Saqibs account was blocked. Thank you Balochworld (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ivanvector Balochworld (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a conflict of interest, please explain how you own the copyright to this image. Huon (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're at it, this image, too, please. Huon (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon. Both these pictures were taken by me. Thanks Balochworld (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second image is a still from a video (which is why it's of such poor quality). Did you take the video as well? Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you, personally, were present in the Prime Minister House in 2004 to take a close-up photo of the Prime Minister talking with Mr Gabol (admins may want to check the clearly-not-own-work version of the first file that I deleted). You also, personally, took a photo of Mr Gabol with Fatima Jinnah, who died more than 50 years ago. And yet you are in no way associated with Mr Gabol. Sorry, I don't believe that. Huon (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note a previous version that you uploaded said "Picture provided courtesy of Mir Nadir Khan Gabol". It was deleted as there was no proof of this. So which is true? Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not being allowed to contribute Saqib continues to hurl false allegations now against me. He is now claiming that I am Nadir Gabol son of Nabil Gabol. This is insane. First of all I am not going to disclose my real name as that is a privacy issue but even if my name was Nadir Gabol do you all seriously think there is only one person with that name in the whole world? Balochworld (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: please copy my above comment to the ANI page as I have every right to defend myself against Saqibs false accusations. Balochworld (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: my account is Balochworld not BalochworldS. I am sorry but it's quite unfair that you struck off your vote. Hope you will reconsider. Thanks Balochworld (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balochworld, this is your second block for edit warring on this article in a short span, and your responses here so far have not given me confidence that you understand that blocking you has nothing to do with what other editors do. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Edit warring, and please pay special attention to the section titled How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars. Then, please briefly explain here what you should do when another editor reverts your edit, and I'd especially like to know what you can do next time someone reverts your edit and won't discuss the matter with you but just keeps reverting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector: next time I will not get involved in an edit war. I will encourage discussion on the talk page seeking a neutral opinion. AND I will actively seek guidance from other editors/admins. Thank you. Balochworld (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon and Black Kite: I'm reasonably satisfied with respect to edit warring, but you seem to have uncovered some more issues. How would you like to proceed? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban on all Gabol-related articles would appear to be the least we can do here. Not only is there disruption, but the editor is lying to us as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion to that effect at ANI right now. If there's a question of the copyright status of the images, then perhaps we should be talking about an indefinite block instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite I am extremely disappointed by you. You are accusing me of lying? Do you have any evidence? Are you God? Picture this: I was a teenager in 1966, does that make me 200 years old today? Please be careful next time you accuse me of anything without any evidence. Balochworld (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, when you uploaded the image previously, why did you sign it "Picture provided courtesy of Mir Nadir Khan Gabol". Either you took it (as you claim), or the image was provided by a family member (as the previous image claimed). Which is it? With differing stories, you can hardly be upset that people are doubting you. And you still haven't explained how you came to take the video in the Prime Minister's house.... Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Nadir Khan Gabol is a family member? So everyone with the last name Smith are family members? Also I am at no liberty to tell you how I had access to the PM house. I could be a journalist, a bureaucrat, a security official. AM I related to Allah Bux Gabol? NO! Am I related to Nabil Gabol? NO! AM I getting paid for this? NO! Upset? Yes, since you are accusing me of lying without any conclusive evidence. Almost sounds like you have taken everything a little to personal. Balochworld (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained the provenance of these images. As for lying, one of your claims about the first image is a lie, because you've given two different stories about it. That's the problem, unfortunately - we always give people the benefit of the doubt but when they're giving us conflicting stories we have to doubt them. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Which "earlier" image are you talking about? was it uploaded by me or the other balochworldS (notice the s?) that you are assuming to be me? can you send me a link to the deleted file I need to see if it was exactly the same photo that I have uploaded as "ABGABOLJINNAH.jpg." Oh and by the way...you are giving me no benefit doubt. If it was up to you you would probably report me to FBI for upsetting you. Balochworld (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the previous image was File:KBABGABOLJINNAH.jpg, uploaded by you (not Balochworlds) ~~in 2008~~ in 2009. Exactly the same image that was added previously in 2008 by Balochworlds, with the comment "Picture provided courtesy of Mir Nadir Khan Gabol". Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: For what it's worth, the 2008 version of File:KBABGABOLJINNAH.jpg was uploaded by Balochworlds who added that comment; see Special:Undelete/File:KBABGABOLJINNAH.jpg. Balochworld (without the s) uploaded an identical image under the same name in November 2009 that has also gotten deleted; they re-uploaded the same image again as File:ABGABOLJINNAH.jpg about two weeks later. Huon (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I've edited my statement as it was unclear. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite and Huon: Balochworlds uploaded File:Withbenazir2.jpg in 2008. A year later File:ABGABOLJINNAH.jpg was uploaded from this account (Balochworld). See the metadata of both images. Exactly the same software and version was used. Further connect the dots. --Saqib (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's patently obvious that Balochworld has uploaded images that were not their own work and claimed "own work" for those (for example File:Baran.jpg). That makes it impossible for me to just accept their word when they make implausible claims about copyright, such as having taken photos in the 1960s and in the Prime Minister's residence. It's also patently obvious (despite claims to the contrary) that this account either is User:Balochworlds or is associated with that account (that's a distinction that doesn't make much of a difference); compare for example File:Baran.JPG and File:Gaboltribe.JPG. Given the file descriptions and the nature of some of those files, I find it extremely difficult to believe that they are not associated with the Gabol family in some way. User:Balochworlds definitely is associated. So we're pretty obviously being lied to. Having a conflict of interest is one thing. Falsely claiming not to have one is another; it's deceptive and indicates more severe problems. Lying about copyright is yet another can of worms. For these issues I'll block the account indefinitely. Huon (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon Stop playing Prosecutor, Judge, Jury and executioner. Find someone who claims I stole their work/image and falsely claimed as my own. Stop assuming things and jumping to (convenient) conclusions. Balochworld (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy: The (deleted) example image I linked to above was claimed by you as "own work" but bears a Google copyright tag. As I said above, that makes it impossible for me to take any further implausible claims of yours at face value when you fail to provide explanations upon request. Also, if you were a teenager in 1966, you were younger than 10 in 1956, when the image of Fatima Jinnah apparently was taken. I find it highly implausible that the cameraman (or -woman) at such a high-profile event would be a child. Huon (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with your statement above. You are incorrectly assuming that I and the other account are the same person. 2: my uploaded image and the other image were exactly the same. 3: my image was not circulated on Google publicly. 4: that the picture is from 1956 and not 1966. 5: my age.

@Ivanvector: surely you will not allow this injustice.

If you are not the same person as the one who operated the Balochworlds account, you'll have to explain why we should believe your copyright claims and not that other person's although that other person had uploaded the same images earlier than you (more than one image, including at least one they claimed as "own work"). "Trust me" is not going to cut it, particularly since you have made patently and obviously false statements about "own work".
Your uploaded image and the other image were exactly the same. That's not an assumption; I can see the deleted images.
If your image was publicly circulated on Google before you uploaded it here, we'll need confirmation via WP:OTRS that proves you are indeed the copyright holder and not just someone else who took it from Google. I did Google Image searches for the images, though, and couldn't find old non-Wikipedia-related copies. If the image was previously published elsewhere, please provide a link.
The original uploader wrote that the image was from 1956 and not 1966. Why should we disbelieve that original uploader's statement? Are you calling him a liar?
You said: "I was a teenager in 1966". Were you misrepresenting your own age? Huon (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who the other uploader is and I will not call that other person a liar. The picture is my own work and I have copyright. Did anyone else claim that I stole their work? You blocked my account based on assumptions. Balochworld (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That other uploader, who uploaded the images first, also tagged some of them as "own work" - yes, the same ones you later uploaded. So there are competing claims of copyright for those images. And of course there are the images you uploaded as "own work" which bear a Google copyright tag, and the one that was credited to APP. It doesn't matter whether others are aware that you violate their copyright and explicitly complain. You'll have to do better than "I don't know who that person is whose username is almost identical to mine and who claimed copyright to the photos I claim as my own work before I did so". Why should we believe your claim and not the earlier uploader's? Are you claiming that they stole your work? How? I'll note that you did not answer any of my other questions and didn't provide any new information which would help get this situation sorted out. Huon (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I bring the other person into the conversation? I will talk about myself. THIS IS MY WORK. I have used it on flickr, ORKUT, blogs. I don't know why the other account stole it. I don't know why that other account first had a different username and then CHANGED it to look like mine. It's quite obvious the other account tried to impersonate me. These are questions that you should be directing at them. There have been a lot of accusations hurled at me and I've been cleared on all of them. But I guess this will never end. RIP benefit of doubt. Balochworld (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Balochworld: please see Huon's point #3 above. If you have proof of copyright but do not want to discuss here, please contact WP:OTRS to verify the matter privately. We can't do anything for you otherwise. We have to go by what we can see, and that is that your "own work" image uploads appear to be derivatives of images with a separate watermarked assertion of ownership, and thus your uploads are copyright violations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I have the original hard copy with me. Does the other account with "s" claim that they took the picture? I am the only person claiming ownership. The picture is over 50 years old and I have shared it with several individuals via emails, copies etc. There is no conclusive evidence to justify blocking me indefinitely. Please reconsider. Thanks. Balochworld (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like Huon and I said, the only way to verify is by going through OTRS. I'm not an OTRS volunteer, I can't help you any more with this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector and Floquenbeam: I tried use the OTRS. Apparently I don't know how to use it. Help?Balochworld (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes, it's a lot of info. I suggest sending an email to permissions-en

wikimedia.org, someone should be able to help you from there. Thanks for taking the time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Balochworld, 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.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ABGABOLJINNAH.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:ABGABOLJINNAH.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

The uploader claim - own work . can't be true. The subject died in December 1972. Need permission via OTRS

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. Saqib (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gabolandpm.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gabolandpm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with unjust blocking of my account. User:Huon has blocked my account indefinitely accusing me of lying. I uploaded a picture that I exclusively own. Just because another user with a similar name as mine uploaded it as well Huon is assuming that I am the guilty party. The other user has not claimed ownership of the image nor have they challenged me. I don't see how this justifies a draconian act such as blocking me indefinitely. thanks.

Balochworld (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use the help me template for unblock requests. Follow the instructions above. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: hi. I'm not sure what instructions above are. I don't see anything. Could you please point it out. Thanks. Balochworld (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is detailed at length all over your talk page. To be quite honest, if you can't be bothered to read it, I'm not sure that editing Wikipedia is for you. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

replying to your ping above, and doing it down here because discussion is going on in several locations and I'm getting lost.

So issue #1: you fully deserve a 1 week block for "serial edit warring", which appears to me to be obviously accurate, and after multiple warnings. So there's really no way you're going to get unblocked before the 21st, no matter who owns what photo. So there's no rush. So stop posting random stuff all over the page, misusing {{helpme}}, etc.

Issue #2: Since there's no rush, take a couple of days off. Then, come back, review the claims of copyright violation and COI, and make a clear, concise unblock request that addresses them. I admit to not understanding all the details of this issue, but I note that (a) Huon, Black Kite, and Ivanvector know what they're doing about 99.5% of the time, and (b) it does not look like anyone is supporting you here, so your claim that this is obvious nonsense and you should be unblocked at once ring hollow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, here's a list of all of Balochworld's image-related contributions:

File:Minister.jpg: Nothing actually uploaded but a link to an image uploaded by User:Balochworlds six minutes after Balochworld's edit.
File:Gaboltribe.JPG: Had previously been uploaded by User:Balochworlds as File:Baran.JPG, as File:Gabol Tribe Mens welcoming Sardar Nabil Ahmed Gabol.jpg and as File:Gabol Tribe Mens welcoming Sardar Nabil Ahmad Gabol.jpg ("Ahmad" instead of "Ahmed") with a claim of {{PD-self}}, ie they claimed to have been the creator.
File:Huntingathome.jpg
File:Baran.jpg and File:Baranzoom.jpg: Two different images taken from Google Maps, with full copyright tags. Both claimed as {{PD-self}}. Obvious copyright violations.
File:KBABGABOLJINNAH.jpg and File:ABGABOLJINNAH.jpg: Discussed above at length. Previously uploaded under the first name by User:Balochworlds who added both {{PD-self}} and, in a separate edit, "Picture provided courtesy of Mir Nadir Khan Gabol". So yes, they claimed to be the creator and/or copyright holder of that image, too. It's here, and while Balochworlds uploaded it to Wikipedia before it was posted on Facebook, Balochworld uploaded it only afterwards.
File:SardarNabilGabol.jpg: Two versions of Gabol at a rally. Same image, slightly color-adjusted.
File:Gabolandpm.jpg: Two different versions, the first of which had a caption that credited it to APP. The initial upload already was tagged as {{PD-self}}. Given the location, the other version is dubious too, and Balochworld has been evasive at best.
File:Benazir.JPG: Not identical to any of the various Bhutto images uploaded by User:Balochworlds. It's this image, uploaded on the same day (October 7, 2010).
File:SardarNabilGabol1.jpg: Another copy of File:SardarNabilGabol.jpg
File:Nabilahmedgabol.jpg: Two versions differing by some photoshopping to remove a background light. The second version is the same as this, and it was uploaded to Wikipedia after April 25, 2011. The first version is a crop of this, uploaded after October 24, 2010. Both versions were claimed to be {{PD-self}}.
File:Allah Bux Gabol.jpg: This, uploaded after March 8, 2011. License given as {{self|cc-zero}}.

That's a total of eleven different images uploaded (differing by more than a modification of the same underlying photograph). Of those, three are unambiguous copyright violations since they come with image credits to some corporate entity. Two were previously uploaded by Balochworlds with a competing claim of authorship. Four, including one of the previous two, were on family members' Facebook pages before they were uploaded here by Balochworld. For only three of the images could I not find a prior version somewhere else. "Benefit of the doubt" under these circumstances? Sorry, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Huon (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Balochworld, 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.

Saqib (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Balochworld, 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.

Saqib (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Balochworld, 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.

Saqib (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]