User talk:Umer23459

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Umer23459, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete 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! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Wah Gardens. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 was changed by Umer23459 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.929329 on 2018-10-08T18:49:38+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—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. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Balakot. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:DBigXray can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pakistani textbooks controversy, 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions reminder[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edit was meant as a preview, however you have written that I have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, when I haven't. Aside from edits made over a year ago, I have been focused on Pakistani pages alone. Given the contentious nature of wiki pages on this region, while I am not accusing the admin of bias, I have found it curious that I have been reprimanded by an admin whose edits on pages are predominantly confined to India, and ask the user in the future to refrain from lumping the three countries into one. Umer23459 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit any one of those three countries, you are still subject the discretionary sanctions.

On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter which country you are from or what topics you edit. What matters is whether you adhere to Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:NPOV. Trying to categorise editors on the basis of nationalities itself indicates bias, and is discouraged. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously stated, zero indication was made of indicating you of bias, I simply pointed out it would be dishonest of us to believe that an Pakistani replying to an Indian or Kashmiri page, or vice versa, could be absolutely free from bias. Umer23459 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Qamar Javed Bajwa. Thank you. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that references I used were poor; the leaks in the article in question have been acknowledged by the Pakistani government, and they have levied criminal charges against the government employee(s) who leaked it.

Furthermore, a breaking story does not merit it as poorly referenced. Thank You! Umer23459 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm M.Ashraf333. 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 and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it less than nuetral if I am also posting Bajwa's side of the story? You seem to obsessed with hurting the General's image in any way. Please keep in mind that Wiki is meant for telling ALL sides of the story, not just our biases. Umer23459 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Qamar Javed Bajwa, you may be blocked from editing. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to reply to any of my concerns, and reply only with further threats.

Please reply to my concerns; if there is valid reason for your removals other than accusations on me of bias, I will be happy to address them. Umer23459 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Umer23459 and @Umer2345, I had already been reply to you on Admin noticeboard regarding your contribution in Qamar Javed Bajwa. Your continuous contribution about Qamar Javed Bajwa is really disrupting as you are trying to add controversial topics to BLP without any credible references and authority, who have the right to take decisions i.e. Supreme Court. You include daily routine news and statements from leaders of a political party. Ahmed Noorani's allegations have never been confirmed by the government and the Arshad Sharif murder case is still pending in the Supreme Court. If you look at your contribution timeline for the last 3 months, you are very consistent to include these things only on this page. The timeline of your contributions and continued deep interest make you vulnerable to a political bias. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit-warring and sockpuppetry at Qamar Javed Bajwa. 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 ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 10:21, 28 January 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).

Umer23459 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no reason for my current bloc. I've literally been just adding things into Wikipedia, with sources, and for it I've been wrongly accused of everything from vandalism to biasness, and now of evading a block by using a different IP, without any evidence. I've repeatedly warned the mods on the Qamar Javed Bajwa page of an edit-war brewing, and they've done nothing.

Decline reason:

First, just adding things using sources isn't by itself enough. You have been told several times by the other user that you were adding biased, unreliable sources ... and you kept on doing it, in a topic area for which, as the little blue box above says, administrators have a freer hand than usual to sanction users who behave tendentiously and fail to assume good faith as you have (by accusing the other user of political bias and ulterior motives). And when you feel an edit war brewing, it's on you not to do it, no matter how justified you feel it would be. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:50, 30 January 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.

Umer23459 (talk) 04:54, 30 January 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).

Umer23459 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here

And how exactly have I been adding biased, unreliable sources- this is a serious question? How are sources judged as being bias on Wikipedia, when I am just literally entering information from a source. They are also a wide variety of sources, and if you actually viewed the content at hand (which it seems you haven't), you'd see that nowhere am I positing my additions as fact. I have also painted both sides of the story quite clearly.

It also seems that you haven't been paying close attention to this case... please show me *one* instance where I accused a fellow user of holding political bias and ulterior motives- this is what *I* have been accused of time and again! (See: M.Ashraf333's post on January 11, 16 & 18. On the 30th I was accused of using a different IP to vandalise.) As regards to your comment on edit warring- it's on me, but not on the editor who has repeatedly accused me of bias, attacked me based on my unrelated edits, and removed my edits?

The content that I posted in question was purely informational & had to do with corruption *accusations*- again, these aren't posited anywhere by me as fact.

But it seems that despite the dozens and dozens of sources that I provide, no matter how wide of a variety, the onus remains on me, and not User M.Ashraf333, to not be bias- again, if you view the history of M.Ashraf333's comments, it's pretty clear that nowhere have I accused him, nor anyone, of being bias. Please show me where I have accused him of bias.

Lastly, I have been accused of going around an edit block by using a different IP- any proof of this, or is the onus still on me, like everything else?

Qamar Javed Bajwa's corruption accusations were one of the largest controversies of his career (and even acknowledged by the Pakistani govt as an actual leak), yet in spiteit being one of the largest stories on the wiki character in question, Wikipedia just seems to refuse to show any trace of it.

All that remains of this is my intro edit, which was saved from M.Ashraf333's removal thanks to a Wiki bot preventing him from doing so.

If the current state of Wikipedia disallows the free flow of information and welcomes active censorship, then I feel truly sorry for it.

Good Day.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not and never has been about "the free flow of information". Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources. Perhaps this misunderstanding is the reason you have used unreliable sources. Wikipedia does not censor, but we do have standards for content and sources. If you just want to tell the world about alleged corruption in Pakistan, you should do that on social media, not here. Regarding the socking, the edit history of the article in question clearly shows an IP restoring your edit exactly. Perhaps you did not intend to do that(edit while logged out), but that is the reason for the socking claim. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 31 January 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.

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).

Umer23459 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Firstly, you still haven't answered my basic question- what constitutes a reliable source. The exact platforms that I've cited as my sources constitute the majority of sources for most Wiki articles on Pakistan: For example, Dawn News, the country's largest English daily, whom I have cited multiple times, is not only used elsewhere but also on this exact same page- I've counted a total of 27 times that Dawn News is used as a source on Qamar Javed Bajwa's page. Going by this logic, then, most of the sources on this page are unreliable, and should thereby be removed. To keep reliable sources on Wikipedia, please go ahead and do so.

The news platform in question that broke the story of Bajwa's family's assets, Fact Focus, has been described by Reporters without borders as a "Pakistani investigative website" on their report that it was completely blocked from being accessed in Pakistan after the aforementioned story. The RSF also acknowledged that the story inquestion "has put precise and sourced numbers" in exposing the assets owned by the general's family- is Reporters without borders also an unreliable source of information? I also cited the RSF in my addition that was called 'unreliable'.

Next up we've got The Wire as a source I used, and was called unreliable. According to Wikipedia (if Wikipedia is a reliable source, that is), The Wire is an award-winning "Indian nonprofit news and opinion website."

I've also used Business Recorder as a source, described by Wiki as 'the pioneers of financial journalism in Pakistan', Ary News, regarded as the 'most watched news channel in Pakistan' according to Wiki, Geo News, Arab News located in the gulf, The Daily Times, described as 'a newspaper that advocates liberal and secular ideas', The Friday Times, and The Express Tribune- all major news organizations that covered one aspect or another, as reflected in my sources.

I've also used Bloomberg as a source- is this also unreliable?

Keep in mind that I've used these sources to extrapolate a variety of views- they did not reflect nor push a singular idea, but rather were cited to explain a situation regarded by the government of Pakistan as verifiable leak.

I've also cited a top electoral watchdog, Free and Fair election as a source in my addition- how is this not a reliable source? Do tell.

Second, and most alarmingly, you accused me of accusing another user of bias- when I pointed out that this was not the case and to please show instances of when I have done so, you've said nothing on this issue. Why is that so?

Has/will User M.Ashraf333 be penalized by Wiki for attacking me repeatedly based off my edit history?

Regarding your comment that the sock puppetry accusation was purely situational- is this not an unreliable reason? If so, please remove it from among the reasons I've been blocked. I'd never stoop that low.

Lastly, I am not the one accusing the general of corruption. The 'accusations' that you speak of, have in fact been acknowledged by the Government of Pakistan as a verified leaks- thereby solidifying that Qamar Javed Bajwa's family saw an enormous increase in wealth during his tenure- this is what I was simply trying to do, and have been attacked for doing. This is also in the intro part to Qamar Javed Bajwa's page, with two separate sources cited to it.

Or is the actual Government of Pakistan also not a verifiable source of information?

............

It has now been several days, I've followed the unblocking guidelines on the guide to appealing blocks to a tee, and yet my genuine concerns being ignored?

The edit in question at the root of my block is routinely is still being overturned by M.Ashraf333, who in his most recent removal cited my edit being 'unsourced', despite having more than a dozen, varied sources attached to them.

Why is my request being consistently ignored if I have followed the correct producers to a tee?

Why is M.Ashraf333, who has previously accused me of being bias, and is now deleting whole swathes of sourced material, being let off for his accusations, while I am being punished?

If, upon review, my sources are still being seen as bias and unreliable- fine, I will stop appealing until my block time has finished- and if my sources are reliable, please have Dawn News, Bloomberg, et al all removed from Wikipedia as sources as they are unreliable. But don't leave my request unattended for lack of answers to my many concerns raised about my blocking.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: The block has now expired. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:15, 14 February 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.

CS1 error on Death of Arshad Sharif[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Death of Arshad Sharif, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Farrukh Habib[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Farrukh Habib, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]