User talk:Maulakhan

Speedy deletion of Faraz (The Musik)

A tag has been placed on Faraz (The Musik) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources for such strong claims as "he is the most popular pakistani singer on facebook" - what authority has evaluated that? Do they keep a ranked list of Pakistani singers on Facebook? Please respect WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and avoid statements like "He is the best singer in Bollywood due to his unparalleled singing technique and charismatic personality" or "Atif gave a mesmerizing performance", even if reliably sourced. Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know there is no other Pakistani with more likes on Facebook? Even if there is none today, Facebook is very volatile, and someone may come even next week, i.e., facts should be reliable and encyclopedic. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this was a step in the right direction, but it is not a reliable source. Materialscientist (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Atif Aslam. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), 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 ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm Sjö. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Hafiz Muhammad Saeed because it did not appear constructive. 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. Thanks. Sjö (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit Sjö reverted was a bit worse than "not constructive" in my opinion. One more blatant attack on a living person and you'll be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Blocker, I was informed that if I will make one more attack on living person, I will be blocked. In fact, I edited page of a Celebrity giving a sound reference. I was immediately blocked and received a motification that edit was too short. How does that justify my block? Please educate me on this as I am new to Wikipedia, every time I try to add some sourced information I receive warnings of Blocks :(

Decline reason:

Your edits at Research and Analysis Wing where you presented allegations without evidence (and noted as allegations without evidence in the sources you provided!) as fact probably didn't help. You didn't even report the right allegations as facts but misinterpreted them. Huon (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ah Ok! so I have been blocked due to my edits at Research and Analysis Wing. Ok, so you think that I misconstrued some of the facts. Ok! then my mistake. May I then directly quote from the newspaper, because I know in the sources I quoted, there is a fair amount of information that people need to know and it is not currently present on Research and Analysis Wing. As for other information present on this page one may easily note that there are many assertions without evidence if that information can stay there, why not this one? Maulakhan (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Comments from this user do not make me feel confident that they will follow WP:BLP Karl Dickman ^talk 07:04, 21 September 2015 (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.