User talk:Dragon819010

Recent edit to Bangladesh–Pakistan relations

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Bangladesh–Pakistan relations without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! I removed it because there wasn’t enough evidence for me but I’ll leave it as it is. Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari‎

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MapSGV (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Also I agree we shouldn’t argue but in my case I disagree with you but I won’t continue this Dragon819010 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Great so adding information is wrong. Should’ve known better about some Wikipedia users as I can easily be blocked so I’ll watch my self and be careful either ways I will respect the rules. Dragon819010 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DBig Xrayᗙ 20:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant 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's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kargil War, you may be blocked from editing. DBig Xrayᗙ 20:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) My edits infact arent distruptive you are unconstructive as in fact both nations agrees to a ceasefire hence there were no victors. But i'll leave the page as it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon819010 (talk • contribs) [reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Siachen conflict. DBig Xrayᗙ 20:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I inputed correct info you may disagree i will leave it here but i see the fact that you are abusing your power here on Wikipedia against people who you disagree with who have a smaller wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon819010 (talk • contribs)

You have been warned for the violation of policy, this is not the misuse of any power. Please see the reason I stated above. Wikipedia article information is based on WP:RS and not on the basis of what you think or believe. Please read the references in the article before changing. u have to provide WP:REF for your edits per WP:V.

see below articles for more information.

1965 War from Pakistani perspective^[1]
Betrayal in Balochistan^[2] --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The myth of September 6, 1965". Archived from the original on April 25, 2012. Retrieved August 7, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^ Akbar, Malik Siraj (17 May 2015). "Betrayal in Balochistan". The World Post. Archived from the original on 26 June 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2015. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

ARBIPA 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.

--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello, I'm Apaugasma. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mian Mir. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sumanuil. 06:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Mir as stated in the article is not descedant of Prophet Muhammad PBUH hence forth his title of being a Syed or including Ali Shah makes no sense you can check this information yourself. Dragon819010 (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barakzai Dynasty

Hi there,

can you check out the english wikipedia to "Barakzai Dynasty" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakzai_dynasty, because the user "M***oyalist" made a lot of changes in almost every section, which seems self-promoting and unreliable, especially the claims that the Dakik family is the head of house of the royal family, naming of afghanistan etc. There is no reliable source for such claims. The same user did the same changes on the german wikipedia pages, which were succesfully undone. I saw you had the same problem on the wikipedia page of "Dakik Family" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakik_Family. For this reason I am asking you to have a look at this problem. I saw in general that the information claimed, have no or unreliable sources. It would be best, to undone the changes of this user M***oyalist and maybe protect the page from him\her. Janos Neman (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much I certainly agree. I truly appreciate your support in this matter.

I tried my best to remove unreliable and biased information and will continue to do so. Dragon819010 (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing biased information is an appreciable intention to have, however, it is important to note that your talk only demonstrate that you have a history of making frivolous and vandalistic edits. Your recent edits on 'Dakik Family' and Naqib-al-Ashraf pages are demonstrative that your views are motivated by personal opinion, as reflected in your comment : ": Another website referenced I researched is owned by the family and has bias information claiming to be superior over all syeds/ashraf this is just not true as the humans are all equal and Islam does not in any way promote tribalism furthermore it seems the person who added this info is on an ego rant". This is not a neutral take, and therefore is does not satisfy Wikipedia's standards. Fluffykitty11 (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My take is clearly neutral it seems like I have enraged you by removing these lies as the family owns the websites and nothing that they state is officialised they do not have the official stamps and authentication rewards given by Naqib Al Ashraf and they claim superiority over others seems like bias racism

By your comments it seems you are a supporter of the family and that your viewpoint does not agree with Wikipedia standards Dragon819010 (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't go more contradictive. On the one side you claim Islam is all about love and no tribalism (writing that under your comments) and on the other hand you vehemently attack any content related to Dakik Family on Wikipedia because of their non-patrilineal lineage to Sayyid Abdul Qadir Gilani. Fact is if you want or not, they are Abdul Qadir Gilani´s descendants. The son of the daughter has the same rights as the son of the son, if you claim Islam is really all about love and no tribalism. You are indeed a very unbiased personality and seemingly have your own hatred against this family, who in fact has a wide fellowships which is the reason why I specialized myself on them. MadRoyalist (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragon819010 I am not enraged, and please stop making these allegations, this itself is a violation of Wikipedia policies. We are talking for your own good as your conduct is clearly violating Wikipedia policies and you might be banned. It is clear that you have not read the sources cited and do not understand the family tree of the Dakik Family. Please return with research, and we will be glad to address your concerns. Fluffykitty11 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are apart of the family furthermore I know the most prominent leaders of Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jillani within South Asia and they do not consider a person with just maternal ties as apart of Gilani Al Qadariyah silsalah and this is not opinion it is well known fact within the tariqah The leadership continues through the male lineage for a silsalah and if you were not so uneducated claiming false you would know this also "superiorty over all Syeds and people" which makes me laugh Dragon819010 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Dakik Family—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request you research the references and content given

The family has a bias with a false claim of superiority over others furthermore if you look at their uploaded documents on the sites for "naqib al ashraf" there is not a single stamp or proof of authentication of link with naqib al ashraf

Furthermore they claim Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jillani succession when in fact they are from Imam Musa Al Kazim

So I request you look into this and remove the bias information Dragon819010 (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well based on the sources and the de facto fellowship, that is the belief of their own followers. The sources and facts speak for themself. What is your problem with that? Ismailis believe in the superiority of Agha Khan over all Sayyids and the Qadiri Naqshbandis (Or Ishaanites/Mirjanites) believe in their superiority? Wikipedia is all about presenting knowledge on groups and movements and their beliefs and not about contesting the superiority of the one above the other, like you do. MadRoyalist (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their claim of Naqib al Ashraf or as they are called in Afghanistan "Sayyid ul Sadaat" is not false. You are the person again, who has any kind of a problem with this movement, because you vandalize content about them on Wikipedia. You use impressive words like "biased" but do you actually know hat it means? You are the one who acts unbiased by deleting sourced content. MadRoyalist (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok "madroyalist" you seem to be editing all pages clearly for your own family or the family you are a disciple of

we should consider facts not just specific beliefs of communities I highly respect Naqshbandi, Suhrwadiy, Qadariyah etc but 1 family can not claim ultimate superiority especially within a sufi based order The sucession of course can be hereditary but it does not give them supremacy over others of the same status Dragon819010 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is 'individual research' which violates Wikipedia policies. It is your opinion that one family cannot take superiority, however, the Dakik Family is the "claimant" of such a position (it is not a question of superiority per say but of legitimacy). Please do not compel us to bring other admins in this regard - you are welcome to make constructive edits and edit information to make it from a neutral/biased perspective, but your conduct of vandalising (removing swathes of information) is very unconstructive and appears rather primitive. Also, please stop making allegations of bias on us, this is ad hominem . There are many task forces of different organisations (see the Ahmadiyya Task Force) which are sanctioned (allowed) by Wikipedia's policies. So what you claim to be a conflict of interest has been considered otherwise by the precedent set by Wikipedia (regarding the Ahmadiyya Task Force Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Ahmadiyya task force). You have a history of vandalism, edit wars and therefore we will not engage with you further - we will take our complaint at a higher level with deference to Wikipedia's policies. Fluffykitty11 (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would be most constructive to our time is @Dragon819010 compiles a list of statements which he believes are not biased / academically sound, and @MadRoyalist and @Dragon819010 both shall civilly discuss those concerns and reach consensus. Vandalising, edit wars, and accusing others is not the way to go forth.@Dragon819010 has the onus to compile the list of their concerns (as he is in the accusative), and @MadRoyalist shall be obliged to address them. You (@Dragon819010) are given the benefit of doubt that you may be thinking in good faith and it is intended that your concerns are addressed. Fluffykitty11 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffykitty you seem to be conpltely unaware of Wikipedia guidelines also claiming individual research is bias is in itself hilarious

What matters most is utilising reliable and independent sources not just believing every source you see without

Also your bias has been proven you stated "stop making accusations against us" proving both accounts are ran by the Dakik family well done Dragon819010 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, I'm Apaugasma. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Abbas ibn Ali, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hope you are well

apologies I thought it was sufficient that the page itself of Qutb Shah mentioned him being a descedant of Abbass bin Ali Dragon819010 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, other Wikipedia articles themselves being user-generated are not considered reliable (see WP:USERGENERATED), so editors should always check and cite the relevant reliable sources.

However, if something gets mentioned in another Wikipedia article, a reliable source for it should be cited there, and in such cases it's sometimes possible to also copy the source from the other article. In this case though the sources cited at Qutb Shah for this do not seem reliable.

Finally, when copying from other Wikipedia articles be sure to provide attribution with a link to the source article in your edit summary, as explained in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sayyid. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

😂

Keep allowing him to boast his family Dragon819010 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at variable vandalisms, you may be blocked from editing.--MadRoyalist (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustly banned due to User:MadRoyalist false accusations alongside discriminating against Shia Sayyids however I now understand not to engage in edit wars nor to edit without my own sourcing

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).

Dragon819010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was unjustly blocked, furthermore i have been falsely associated with another blocked user known as Syed User:SyedNaqvi90 when in fact that page was made 15 years ago i was not even using wikipedia 15 years ago you can check the IP logs the user MadRoyalist apparent from his name boasted ahout his own family using websites as sources which created by themself with not external reliable sources and all i did was remove those false edits

furthermore i understand it is not up to wikipedia standards to engage in edit wars from now on i will not make unecessasry edits also utilise reliable sourcing however i do recommend any wikipedia admins to at least look into the reasoning of my edits and you will see i was carrying out my duty according to wikipedia standards this User:MadRoyalist has been on my case since i edited the Dakik family page and not leaving me alone alongside falsley associating my account with another blocked page this clearly is a defmation smear against my account Furthermore I recommend that user:MadRoyalist page be looked into especially due to bias and using unreliable sources Dragon819010 (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for disruptive editing, not sock puppetry or block evasion, so it makes it all the more curious that you bring up a blocked user given that I don't see where they were associated with you. Maybe I missed it. Note that checkusers do not perform innocence checks. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2023 (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.

Dear fellow user If you actually read my appeal properly you will see I mentioned I was accused of sock puppetry I did not state this without reason I was accused of it by user:MadRoyalist I tried my best not to engage within disruptive editing and I reached out to admins you can see it in my logs yet I was ignored In my appeal I mentioned that bias and falsified, bias and self serving information was being sourced by user:MadRoyalist he also added content stating people adhering to Shia sect of Islam can not he considered real Sayyid which infers discrimination based on sect, sect division and racial superiority complex based on being "Sayyid" and a Sunni this edit was in the Sayyid oage of wikipedia I removed this content causing disruptive editing issues between me and user:MadRoyalist

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).

Dragon819010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I was unjustly blocked, furthermore i have been falsely associated by user:MadRoyalist with another blocked user known as Syed User:SyedNaqvi90 when in fact that page was made 15 years ago i was not even using wikipedia 15 years ago you can check the IP and user:MadRoyalist is on a defmation smear against me also the IP logs can be checked the user MadRoyalist apparent from his name boasted ahout his own family using websites as sources which created by themself with not external reliable sources and all i did was remove those false edits furthermore i understand it is not up to wikipedia standards to engage in edit wars from now on i will not make unecessasry edits also utilise reliable sourcing however i do recommend any wikipedia admins to at least look into the reasoning of my edits and you will see i was carrying out my duty according to wikipedia standards this User:MadRoyalist has been on my case since i edited the Dakik family page and not leaving me alone alongside falsley associating my account with another blocked page this clearly is a defmation smear against my account Furthermore I recommend that user:MadRoyalist page be looked into especially due to bias and using unreliable sources

Decline reason:

See WP:GAB. Talk only about your actions, not those of other editors. You'll also need to show exactly where you were accused of sockpuppetry, as you continue to claim this was part of your block and I can see no evidence of this. Yamla (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2023 (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.

you will see I mentioned I was accused of sock puppetry I did not state this without reason I was accused of it by user:MadRoyalist I tried my best not to engage within disruptive editing and I reached out to admins you can see it in my logs yet I was ignored In my appeal I mentioned that bias and falsified, bias and self serving information was being sourced by user:MadRoyalist he also added content stating people adhering to Shia sect of Islam can not he considered real Sayyid which infers discrimination based on sect, sect division and racial superiority complex based on being "Sayyid" and a Sunni this edit was in the Sayyid oage of wikipedia I removed this content causing disruptive editing issues between me and user:MadRoyalist

I now understand why my account was blocked and can gurantee i will not engage in disrupting edits i have reread the rules and terms alongside will ensure to source and with due dilligence give reason for any removals of content i will consider this as a learning point However if wikipedia admins do not want such issues they should look into bias sources, self interest added content and etc furthermore actually help out a fellow user when requested instead of ignoring the issue until it is to late and then banning the party who was trying to help out in the name of "disruptive editing" Dragon819010 (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said this was the main reason of my block but this was used to defame me also was used by MadRoyalist as an attempt to have me blocked

You are inching very close to losing talk page access as per WP:NLT. Stop. Step back from Wikipedia. Read the policies and guidelines we've linked you to. Then stop talking about other people. --Yamla (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The myth of September 6, 1965". Archived from the original on April 25, 2012. Retrieved August 7, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[x-2] Akbar, Malik Siraj (17 May 2015). "Betrayal in Balochistan". The World Post. Archived from the original on 26 June 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2015. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]