User talk:Faizan raushan

August 2023

You have been continuously vandalizing the List of hydroelectric power stations in Pakistan article. If you have a problem with the content, then you can go and complain to NEPRA as everything in this article is an exact copy of NEPRA Report. I am not going to warn you again and again. If you continue to vandalize the article, you will be reported. Regards An Asphalt (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are an egoistic non-sense immature lad. I have been following this page for many years. Previously in this article, extensions of Tarbela dams were not shown separately. The reason why Napra has shown it this time is only for displaying the latest achievement. It is not a separate Dam or power house, therefore the figures of extension can be merged into the Main Tarbela dam, and the total installed capacity of the Powe station can be shown (by adding both of them) as it is written in wikipedia article Tarbela Dam. Now stop trying to be an over smart kid and stop undoing my correction.

The fifth extension will be completed in April 2026 and will further increase the electricity generation capacity. This should also be merges in the Main Tarbela Dam. If you want to show these extensions separately then edit it and show all the previous 1, 2, 3, 4 extensions. I am a Civil Engineer and have also worked on Dam projects, therefore I know how these extensions are made and how they work.

Now if you want to report me, then go ahead. You shall be reported too. And if you want to continue this childish meaningless reversing undoing game, then you are ON... Pakistan zindabad!!! Faizan raushan (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is unreal. Calling others "kid" and getting personal and thinking you are some "cool dude" who knows more than others. I don't care if you are a civil engineer because this is Wikipedia. Trust me, you are not the only one who knows about dams. Regarding Tarbela dam, there was no "Extension 1,2,3". The turbines were installed in phased manner in the tunnels that were designed for hydropower production. Meanwhile, in 4th and 5th extension the turbines are being installed in tunnels that were initially designed for agricultural uses. So NEPRA and even WAPDA themselves only consider the 4th and 5th extensions as "real extensions". Also, be wary that what you wrote above can easily get you banned as it falls directly under the category of personal attack. I haven't reported you for now so please don't take my generosity for granted. An Asphalt (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I looked into other dams that are are similar to Tarbela in which extensions were made and their production capacity is listed cumulatively. So, you can edit back if you want to. An Asphalt (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Faizan raushan (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, I'm Largoplazo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Muhammad in film without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. Largoplazo (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linferno is not a notible film. I would like to redo the change. Faizan raushan (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, there's a link to an article here about it, L'Inferno, which cites quite a few independent sources. If the film isn't notable, the article would warrant deletion, but it seems notable to me. Largoplazo (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its a biased Unauthentic article. Please search on Google and get your facts corrected. Faizan raushan (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some "facts" in support of some position relevant to this situation, it's up to you to present them and explain why they're relevant. It isn't up to me to go gallivanting across the Web to prove your point for you. It's also up to you to be more specific about what you mean. "It's a biased Unauthenticated article" is about as nonspecific as you could be, and indicates nothing of your reasons for deleting the specific text that you deleted.

Also, since you have an account, you should be sure you log in each time you edit here, including on Talk pages. See above, where you weren't logged in when you commented, and your signatures give your IP address. Largoplazo (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com.pk/search?q=notable+films+on+muhammad

Please search for yourself and provide me any article that included Linferno among notable films, I will surrender quietly. I would like to include that film under the heading "list of films." Faizan raushan (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you believe that films are notable only if they're about Muhammad.

It's a notable film. It's apparently one in which Muhammad was visually depicted. That's all that's necessary to warrant its inclusion in an article about depictions of Muhammad in films. If you disagree, then you should begin a discussion on the article's Talk page to see if you can provide arguments that will lead to a consensus in support of your view. Largoplazo (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your definition of Notable. Having a mere 10 minutes of clip in a widely unpopular movie, doesn't qualify it to fall under the category of notability.

If you want to include that film in the list of Notables, then include each and every single film in that list with having a proper summary for each film. Faizan raushan (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's Wikipedia's definition of "notable". I don't know what yours is. Is "Star Wars" not notable because Muhammad isn't in it? Notability also has nothing to do with popularity. I also can't tell for how many minutes Muhammad has to be depicted in a film to warrant inclusion in a list of films in which Muhammad has been depicted. Largoplazo (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Muhammad in film, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Muhammad in film, you may be blocked from editing. Largoplazo (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated deletion of the material is not how this works. If you think that sourced material isn't suitable for inclusion in the article, then, as I said, you need to seek consensus for your change at the article's talk page, especially since I disagree with you and I've explained to you why. You at least left an edit summary, but it doesn't make sense, because you're still throwing around the word "notability" both without regard to what the word is used to mean on Wikipedia and with an apparently overblown notion of its relevance to this situation. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Muhammad in film. Largoplazo (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history at Muhammad in film 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. Adakiko (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my counterparts to prove me wrong, I would stop reverting the change. But they failed to prove their stance. On the contrary, I justified my modification by showing them Google search result.

Kindly tell me how am I wrong and why I deserve Blocking??? Faizan raushan (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here long enough; you should know that edit warring is a pattern of edits and it really doesn't matter who's right and who is wrong. And sorry, but "I justified my edit by showing the results of a Google search"--that makes me wonder if WP:CIR doesn't apply here. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why it doesn't matter who's right and who is wrong?? How can you block a person with proving him wrong?

The same thing can be said for Largoplazo who was continuously reverting my change without proving me wrong.

Tell me whats the criteria of Right and Wrong? I told him to prove me wrong by sharing an article in your own favour, I would stop changing the article, but instead the mighty admins arrived and I got Blocked. Hats off!!! Faizan raushan (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you it's not about right and wrong. You reverted FIVE times, and were reverted by two different editors, a clear sign that you are editing against consensus. And Largoplaza did explain: "Unexplained removal of sourced content", because you removed, duh, sourced content without explaining why. And then you go and say "it's not notable because Google says so", which is not ever an argument at all. So the block was completely justified, and rather than trying to learn from the experience so it won't happen again, you are picking a fight with the admins. That's just not the way to go. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, why didn't you ask Largoplaza for creating a consensus?? Why am I the only one obliged to create consensus??? If you don't like my my justification then why didn't you asked Largoplaza to provide the proof and reference for his claim?? I mean, neither he was accepting my justification nor he was giving his own reference for negating me. I claimed that Not a single neutral article says that Linferno is a Notable film on Prophet Mohammad, prove me wrong and I will apologise and accept my mistake.

"You are picking a fight with the admins", are you telling me that the admins of Wikipedia are Hooligans and they can do whatever they want??? -_- Faizan raushan (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that either the admins of Wikipedia give me the proof by showing any neutral article which has included Linferno among Notable films on Prophet Mohammad, if you fail to do so then its a request to please don't resist my edit.

If you people are so keen in letting that movie among the list of notables, then it would be injustice with other movies present in the List of Films, as many among them also deserve to be included among the notables.

The reason why Largoplazo resisted me so much was because he is a Jew, and almost all the Jews hate Prophet Mohammad. That's why he was so persisted in including that blasphemous movie among the list of notables. I am not getting on personal attacks, instead I am telling the fact. He was biased because of his hatred towards Prophet Mohammad, thats why we couldn't create consensus.

I hope other admins of Wikipedia are not egoistic and will do their job rightfully.

I would like to repeat again, extremely unknown Linferno is not a film particularly on Prophet Mohammad, thats why we can not include it in the list of notable films on Prophet Mohammad. I will be redoing my edit, after getting unblocked. Faizan raushan (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone on and on and on about how the film is not "particularly on Prophet Mohammad" while ignoring the point that it's irrelevant whether the film is about Muhammad. Neither the name of the article nor the name of the list is "Films about Muhammad" or "Notable films about Muhammad" or even "Films in which Muhammad was depicted for more than 10 minutes". Therefore, films listed there no more have to be predominately about Muhammad than they have to have starred Doris Day or have been filmed in Technicolor. They're all equally irrelevant.

Further, you can't expect to take the attitude, as you have, that you can do whatever you want, and then condemn administrators for, as you characterized their legitimate actions, doing whatever they want. If there is complete freedom here, then do you think it's only for you?

I'm not an admin, but I can tell you that responses resembling yours have had a 0% success rate at persuading anyone to lift a block in the entire history of Wikipedia. So if you proceed to communicate about this, you have to decide whether your goal is to get the block lifted and and to be allowed to resume editing. If that's your goal, then I guarantee that you're going to have to change your approach. Largoplazo (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone on and on and on; can be said for you too. You poked your nose on this topic which has nothing to do with you. I know that you hate Prophet Mohammad thats why you were so eager to mention that blasphemous movie among the notables. Now please add the movie "Innocence of Muslims" in the list of notable films too and prove me right, because according to your logic Linferno was the one in which Mohammad was visually depicted. Well in the movie Innocence, the Prophet was visually dipicted too.

Now your non-sense statement that says that it's irrelevant whether the film is about Muhammad. Neither the name of the article nor the name of the list is "Films about Muhammad" or "Notable films about Muhammad."

My main argument was to ONLY exclude this movie from the category of Notable films, I never emphasised on removing this film from the entire article. I have said it earlier that mentioning that movie in the category of "List of Films" is enough, and it doesn't deserve to fall under the category "Notable Films."

Your prejudice behaviour and hatred towards Prophet Mohammad has resulted in creating the disagrement on my edit. Faizan raushan (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When no consensus is reached

WP:NOCONSENSUS applies. See also wp:BRD. Adakiko (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bro you delibrately changed my editing in Choke point. I think you find this amusing in poking your nose on those topics in which you don't have any knowledge. Your edit has many mistakes in it.

And as per this rule of No_Consensus, this has given the power to non-sense biased editors that they can interfere on any topic and due to their ill-will they can nullify the consensus. The rule should be based on whether who is right and who is wrong. It should be based on judging an edited text by the authentication of their proofs, reasons, logical unbiased arguments and justifications. Faizan raushan (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've chosen to attack another editor and have stated you will continue edit warring after you are unblocked, I have extended your block to indefinite. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting that from an egoistic immature administrator who is habitual of misusing his powers and acts like a dictator and thinks that he can block a person anytime he wants without proving his edit wrong.

The management of Wikipedia has dropped to such a low level that they have hired 20s year old kids as administrators. Faizan raushan (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]