User talk:Axedd: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{sockpuppet|ShahabKhanJadoon1}} |
|||
== Welcome! == |
== Welcome! == |
||
{| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" |
{| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" |
||
Revision as of 06:20, 11 February 2023
 | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of ShahabKhanJadoon1 (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
Welcome!
|
November 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Pakistan. - Arjayay (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
How are the language percentages "unsourced" when I just corrected it and took the info from the demographics heading (which was sourced in the very same article)??? Wikipedia is usually full of "unsourced" info in lead of the article but referenced elsewhere in the body UserBk12 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Axedd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User Aman.kumar.goel reported me claiming I had been "warned" before for my edits, which is not true since I had been warned only for leaving out references in other articles. He reported me for my edits on the CPEC article which was already marked as too lengthy which is why I cut down its length by moving paragraphs in the body and removing commentary which did not read like an encyclopedia. I made over 30 edits and explained in most WHY I was editing them. He reverted all my edits claiming I did not "explain" my edits (not true). I reverted his edit for clear vandalism and edit warring without providing solid reasons. He also claimed ALL of my edits are disruptive which is not true. UserBk12 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You received numerous warnings, which you read and removed from your talk page numerous times. Did you think we couldn't see the history of your talk page? Yamla (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
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 received ONE warning for leaving out a reference in article about Kashmir's population according to the recent census. (Which I edited again with a reference)
The second warning was ALSO from the same admin previously for leaving out a reference in a Pakistan article for language distribution. This time the source already existed in the body of the article which is why I didn't put a reference. The second warning was also for "unsourced" editing.
I was blocked completely for different reasons on the CPEC article because the edit warring user did not bother to read explanations in most of my 30 + edits and reverted EVERYTHING. I reverted back because I believe it is unfair to claim I didn't leave reasons for my edits and reported me for ONLY disruptive editing when he was the one actually being distruptive? UserBk12 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Fully 40% of your edits have been deleted. Most of those on a highly promotional draft. The broad history of your editing does not lend itself to favorable view of your appeal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
How is that relevant on the CPEC article edits and unfair blocking? I have been editing constructively for 2 years after that the trial and error from the early days of Wikipedia. Why never block me from the start and judge ALL of my 600+ edits? Judging on this particular article is not fair. UserBk12 (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I did not block you on the basis of any specific edit or article. I blocked you on the basis of your broad history. Convince me that you want to contribute constructively, will avoid promotional editing and understand the importance of properly citing claims of fact. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)-Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I do edit constructively which is why I've went over a year without a warning. Just check my edit history. I'm currently just interested in grammar correcting/sentence structuring, correcting vandalism and editing out incorrect info in the articles of my interest/or random ones I come across most of the time. The first promotional draft I made was regrettable and was made when I was not aware of Wikipedia's policies and decorum. After it was gone, I only started editing as a hobby.
I take warning very seriously. I responded to the first block warning for unsourced content by editing a reference. The second warning for unsourced content was not expected since it WAS sourced.
I should've received a warning for "distruptive" editing at least as claimed by the user who reported me so I could get a chance to correct my self.
I am an avid Wikipedia article reader now and have tried my best to correct and add to articles constructively. Kindly make the block temporary at least since I did not receive a relevant warning for being blocked as claimed the the user who reported me. This was very unexpected. UserBk12 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Alright. I am going to unblock you per WP:ROPE. Be very careful in your editing going forward. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- You have been unblocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your unrestrained edits at China-Pakistan Economic Corridor article
Talk:China–Pakistan Economic Corridor#Consider making modifications instead of outright deletion.
When you find (if, you find) something is not right or inaccurate or not as per editing policies, the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. You chose not to respond or engage in discussion on the article talk page but rather go on with your deletion spree as seen on 4 January 2023!
If you think that article content does not belong to a particular section, then it is logical to move it appropriately or create a new section if it is not already present. But you have rather deleted the whole content. This is not at all helpful. (Revision 1131573216, Rev 1131573703 and Rev 1131574137)
If you write moving in the edit summary and in reality you are deleting the content, then this raises question mark on the good-faith assumption of your edits. (Revision 1131575633) This may even be construed as vandalism!
How is mention of Uighur irrelevant? This project is in Xinjiang region. Uighurs belong to this region. There is a well known episode of how China treats them. CPEC risk assessment sees Taliban/terrorism as a potential threat. ISIS has openly declared its stand on this matter. China wants to put this extremist situation to an end by economic development of this Jihad ridden region. And you are deleting this very relevant content from the article? Why do you want to deprive a Wikipedia reader from knowing this perspective? (Revision 1131574963) If content is poorly cited or any source is questionable then removal of added content is understandable. If you have noticed, all the content which you deleted (as mentioned above) were from Academic Journals authored by well educated Pakistani citizens from notable institutions. How it was irrelevant? Have you even tried to make note of the titles of the paper published? They all are regarding CPEC. All other content were sourced from Pakistani media, Chinese media and/or international well reputed media. You may not like it, but a fact is a fact. And it is always presented with citation to verifiable sources.
Earlier, this page did not even mention the word Uighur. Was it deliberate omission? The article did not say quantitatively how China is benefiting from this project. Why was this viewpoint left out? Why were the detailed info on Gwadar resident opposition and Baloch stance excluded? Why was economic implications and debt aspects were not given enough importance? Why was the impact of political fragility in Pakistan on the CPEC projects skipped from the article? Now that some balance in overall content of the article has been restored, why there is a blatant attempt to hide the facts? If you read the thread in article talk page, you will know that few days ago a vandal IP address was involved in massive content deletion in this article when new info was added. I am even suspicious of sock-puppeting!!
Being sympathetic to your position, requesting you that talking to other editors is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. I am trying my best to maintain civility and avoid edit-warring. Please do not indulge in conspicuous acts of deletion and information suppression.
Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, you can also consider:
- Improving grammar or more accurately represent the sources
- Formatting or sourcing on the spot
- Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact
- Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced
- Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other appropriate cleanup tags to content you cannot fix yourself
- Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
Not mentioning anything on your previous experience in November 2022 visible on your talk page and anticipating there would be no need for further escalation, I hope the good sense prevails. Anand2202 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Do read all of the November 2022 experience. It is not controversial at all as you're portraying it at an attempt to open a sock puppet investigation against me or getting me blocked without good reason. UserBk12 (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Not answering the rest since I've already replied to all of this on the talk page of the CPEC article UserBk12 (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Your unabated deletions are disrupting the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor article.
- A few sentences on historic background gives a reader the bigger picture which helps in understanding the current situation better. Your deletion of content sourced from a journal here deprives a reader from knowing the context.
- It is observed that you delete the content in one edit and delete the citation in another. See rev 1132020833 & rev 1132020972 At one place you write "moving" as summary for deletion, and again mention "moved" for the next. Highly inefficient. Prima facie, the content size of both do no match. This has to stop! You hide your clandestine edits under the garb of simple summary like moving in next edit but in reality you are changing the content according to your own views while mentioning Moved. along with some farcical reasons. It appears that small and repeated multiple edits are your way of making it difficult to identify subtle alterations and undo the changes.
- As seen here, you prefer modification when it suits you. But, the same line of thinking is not evident here as well as here, where you blatantly delete the content with absurd edit summary. You could have modified the sentence, but no! You selectively chose to delete the entire sentence!! Why? Just because YOU don't like it? It doesn't suit you? Very much obvious.
- Your deletions at one place might wreck havoc on the further citations at another place in the article. You mention "Moved to challenges. Restoring references in next edit" in the edit summary here but you have very cleverly deleted the wikilinks to all those pages that doesn't suit you. This act of hidden vandalism (warned in earlier comment on 5 Jan mentioned above) is not going unnoticed.
- Your deletion with edit summary "irrelevant" is laughable! The content you consciously removed from the article page says about the steps taken by Pakistan to deal with threats for this project. The verifiable cited source reads - Secret crackdown was started soon after Beijing alerted Pakistani authorities about gravity of threats to workers associated with Chinese projects in Pakistan which according to them prove tempting targets for multiple terrorist groups, operators of ETIM in particular last year. “Such operations are matter of sensitivity. The ETIM and its new allies, Baloch rebels included too, tried to assemble themselves near the CPEC’s routes — but we have almost eliminated ETIM bases on our soil,” one of security operators engaged to monitor the operation revealed. “Some four dozen Uighur fighters were operating in sensitive areas of GB, KP, Gwadar and Balochistan. Kindly explain your stand on its irrelevance to this article. Failure of satisfactory response might lead to consequences.
- Enough is enough. Stop your covert acts of suppressing the information in the article. Consider this as a warning.
- Indulging in same kind of disruptive edits and deletions makes you look like a repeat offender. PLEASE DO NOT PROVE THE OLD SAYING - "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll likely hang themselves." Anand2202 (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Responded on the cpec talk page. Also, trying to get me blocked just because you don't like my edits is a very lazy approach. You can just counter me by explaining why your edits deserve to be there and I'll leave them. This is the true spirit of WIKIPEDIA UserBk12 (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
Hello, I'm TheManInTheBlackHat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Muhajir (Pakistan) 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. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm M.Ashraf333. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman, 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. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The Fatima Jinnah Content Award
|
The Fatima Jinnah Content Award
Awarded for outstanding edits to Muhajir-related articles!
|
Muhajir (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:UserBk12/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Draft:UserBk12/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The article Kaifi Khalil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails all possible criteria of WP:NMUSIC.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaifi Khalil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
doesn't the satisfy the criteria of WP:SINGER ? Of the many criteria listed, only one is needed. I've added multiple reliable sources including from The Express Tribune, dawn.com, Arab news, Daily Pakistan. Aren't 3 reliable sources needed to establish notability? Plus added content about his first international tour Saudi Arabia, satisfying criteria number 4? Uzek (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Plus WP:COMPOSERS too, since he has taken credit for writing the hit song Kana Yaari. Satisfying criteria number 1 Uzek (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Another one, criteria number 7 of WP:SINGER: notable for a introducing a unique style of music Uzek (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello user Uzek, I hope you are doing well.
Thank you for your contributions to the Sindhudesh article. However, I had to revert your edits because they contained radical changes that removed core information from the article which has been present there for a long time. Additionally, it appears that some of these changes may have constituted vandalism as defined by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Apparently in past you might've been an unpopular editor incase seek help with the Five pillars of WikiPedia.
Thank you.
Starkex (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism how exactly? Discuss each and every edit instead of reverting everything. Unexplained content removal isnt a Wikipedia policy. All of my edits were explained Uzek (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)