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:
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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Dl2000 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi Chris 5900 (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
.. Comment on content, not on the contributor. .. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. ..
..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.
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. SilkTork (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)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.
Decline reason:
I don't think this addresses the information discussed in the SPI. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2023 (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.
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)