User talk:Maverick8017

Welcome

Hello, Maverick8017, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Maverick8017, good luck, and have fun. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm Noq. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lahore, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You cannot keep re-adding the same things and expect them not to be reverted again. You have know been reverted 3 times so should read and be aware of WP:edit warring. noq (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zameen.com is not a reliable source

Zameen.com is a website whose purpose is to sell real estate. They have a vested interest in providing information that is positive and enticing, rather than information that is rigorously fact-checked. For this reason, they are not considered a reliable source. If you have better sources for the information you are trying to add, great. If not, please stop trying to use this unreliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lahore; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. RegentsPark (comment) 21:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Hi Maverick8017. You need to be careful how you comment on user talk pages. Make sure that, if you're starting a new section, you do so at the bottom of the page (there should be a "New Section" or a "+" tab at the top of the talk page and you won't go wrong if you use that). Also, and this is a strict no-no, don't intersperse your comments inside another comment. Not only is that hard to read and find, it is also considered disruptive. Please take a look at WP:TALKNEW. Best wishes. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC) @regentspak,the option was not showing so I had to add it there.[reply]

September 2020

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lahore into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Repeated failure to comply with Wikipedia's policies may result in loss of editing privileges and blocking. Idell (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lahore. Idell (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content you added was copied from another website, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Maverick8017. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jamilsays.blogspot.com

Blogs like jamilsays.blogspot.com are self-published and not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. If you have any connection to the website, this is also spam.

Please do not use jamilsays.blogspot.com or similar websites as reference again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore

I have once again reverted your changes at Lahore. You have cited for your changes:

"A Brief Look at Lahore's Cityscape". Mohammad Mohsin's Blog. 31 August 2020. -- a personal entry that appears to have been written after your original posts here at Wikipedia, from text identical to the text here at Wikipedia. This is not a reliable source, and its inclusion in this article appears to be an attempt to drive traffic to this blog.
Mustafa, Usman (2007). "Solving the Urban Sprawl: A Case Study of Kot Lakhpat, Lahore". Cities: Engines of Growth. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help) -- a scholarly book chapter that describes a study of urban sprawl in Lahore, dedicated mostly to describing the study methods, and which in no way verifies any of the content which you have used it to cite.
"Lahore has been my city ever since..." The News on Sunday. 8 October 2019. -- a single artist's recollections about the growth of Laahore. While The News on Sunday is likely a reliable source, this particular article again fails to verify any of the content that is called up on to verify.

Your continued insistence on using these incorrect sources, and on using your version of the article over any other, is problematic at best. Please discuss these changes at Talk:Lahore so that the community can come to a consensus about your changes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDani61 all sources are reliable sources. I think you have some personal problems against city of Lahore. This is spamming. Im complaininy to authorities. Next time you delete my content without my permission, you will be banned from wikipedia.

I think you will find that you are more likely to be blocked from editing than any of the 3 editors that have now reverted your edits. Please read WP:edit warring and the consequences for that. Your insistent that a blog is a reliable source despite more experienced editors telling you it is not is not helpful. Wikipedia is built on building consensus - not WP:OWNERSHIP. Any edit you make can be challenged and does not require your permission to be reverted. Please read WP:BRD about how to try and reach a consensus rather than trying to batter your changes through against multiple editors. noq (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning (violating WP:NPOV and WP:RS)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shame

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).

Maverick8017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have added all authentic sources. I don't know what's wrong with these foreign people who delete Lahore's data again and again. Shame on them.

Decline reason:

Not only do you not seem to have any concept of WP:RS, you are veering close to personal attacks. You have a very short block here. It gives you enough time to read and understand WP:RS and WP:OR. Yamla (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2020 (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 cannot blank an administrator's decline as you did here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restarted your block and prevented any further editing of this talk page. If you continue like this once your block expires, expect your next block to be indefinite. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.