User talk:SahafatKaLover18

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, SahafatKaLover18, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Sarfraz Ali (general) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Introduction and Getting started
Contributing to Wikipedia
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Dl2000 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it was not a test I was doing it on mobile which is why the whole thing got messed up and I would like to apologize for my mistake. I shall try and correct it now that I am home on my computer. ThanksSahafatKaLover18 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello, I'm ContributeToTheWiki. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Sanaullah Khan Niazi—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. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 07:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it is constructive. Please take a look at what you just reverted it back to and what I fixed. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Technopat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Draft:Sandbox 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. Technopat (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I thought that was my own sandbox. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Chris 5900 (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the warning

I didn't notice you were undoing your own edit, please disregard the warning I gave you. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Imran Khan

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Insight 3 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Additionally WP:ARBBLP may also apply. Discussing at the article talk page as per WP:DR is most preferable way for sorting out content related disagreement. The good thing you seem to be already at the article talk page. This intimation is just to keep you informed so that will help you to avoid heat of moment situations and help follow Wikipedia policies as applicable. Wish you happy editing. Cheers. Bookku (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

Present discussion @ Talk:Imran Khan is understandable only to the 2 discussing users and not other users, where as next steps in content dispute resolution namely WP:DR - WP:3O , WP:DRN, WP:RFC involve other users. A brief summary of content dispute understandable to other users in new subsection at the article talk page will help you both and other users if any other user may wish to participate.

though I am 'less likely' to edit those articles my-self, I am just guiding you since some articles in this topic area are on my watch list. Bookku (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I appreciate it. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I give you this different example, an Indian one. You will find difficult to understand what the content dispute is because they are discussing personal complaint style and they are not getting response since one month, though they do have some good points. Make it content specific exact which sentences, which references you are talking about, what is the opinion of other side, what is your opinion along with links to applicable Wikipedia policies. Bookku (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SahafatKaLover18 Just wish to keep you aware of WP:NPA policy which expects

.. Comment on content, not on the contributor. .. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. ..

WP:NPA#WHATIS : Among others

..Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views .. Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views .. is also forbidden.

Specially in contentious topic areas even small remarks made in heat of moment can escalate fast and reach to WP:ARE, what I have observed is due to unending cycles of personal accusations and scrutiny, ultimately many users end up loosing sense of purpose that we are here to built encyclopedia. It's better we are careful from the beginning itself. Personally I am very careful to avoid personalization as much as possible. Happy editing and cheers Bookku (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Asim Munir (general). 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SilkTork (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you and Raheelejaz907 for 24 hours for edit warring on Asim Munir (general). You both fell foul of WP:3RR today, though I note you have been engaged in a slow edit war prior to today. Any issues you have must be sorted out on the talkpage not by edit warring on the article. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Masood Aslam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Okara. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liaqat Khan Tarakai

Hi @SahafatKaLover18

Adding uncommon nicknames such as “Tobacco king of KP” is not a useful contribution. The only time that name has been used is in Ahmed Noorani's article which you’ve linked. One should avoid adding defamatory nicknames that almost no one uses, as it ruins the objectivity of Wikipedia.

Hope this helps! Muzzzmuzzmuzzz (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon? You must not be Pakhtun because everyone in KPK knows him as that. If you had a problem with the nickname, you should've removed only that and not the offices parameters. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Toomanyyearskodakblack per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toomanyyearskodakblack. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2023 (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).

SahafatKaLover18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not associated with that account as a sockpuppet. I have examined their edits and noticed that they neglected to include reference tags properly. For instance, they would use reference tags like " < ref> www.google.com </ref>" without proper formatting and wouldn't fill them in. It appears that they did not invest much effort or attention to detail in their edits. In contrast, I took extra measures by thoroughly reviewing older sources, (see F. S. Lodhi and Iftikhar Khan). Additionally, their initial edit summary, "IMCTC (organization) ‎ yay my first edit," came across as rather immature. On the other hand, I am an educated and professional individual, a recently retired journalist and photographer.

Regarding the claims made by User:Girth Summits, I created the account User:SahafatKaLover95 on Wikicommons under the belief that I needed a separate account for uploading purposes. This is why you can see that I did not engage in editing activities on Wikipedia English using the account User:SahafatKaLover95. It was only after being blocked that I became aware that while logged into my current account (User:SahafatKaLover18), and visiting Wikicommons to respond to my uploads, the website automatically generated an account. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think this addresses the information discussed in the SPI. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 22 November 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.

I would just like to add, if Saidokabaita reversed my edits on Asim Munir (general) by labeling them as vandalism, how could they possibly be considered my sockpuppet account? Check out this link for reference: [1] SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cerebellum Would you kindly review this matter? I went through the active Wikipedia administrators list and randomly selected a name. I've patiently waited for two months, and unfortunately, there has been no response to my appeal. It's disheartening to see such swift actions taken to block individuals without giving them the opportunity to refute the allegations, while the process of addressing appeals is significantly delayed. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your opportuity to refute is now. Unfortunately, there are a large number of requests, and reviewing unblock requests is not a popular area for admins to participate in- and the ones that do have lives away from Wikipedia to live. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. I have refuted the allegations in my unblock request. Thanks SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on why you denied my unblock request? SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]