Hy I'm ShahabKhan302 My Account & Talk Page Was Blocked Please Help Me To Unblock My Account 12:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.141.158.43 (talk) [reply]

Hi, thanks for message. I don't know if you saw the last message from the reviewer, KJP1, who said "Completely self-sourced advert for a commercial education outfit. SPA will almost certainly have an undeclared COI. Tagging for deletion." which pretty well sums it up. I deleted your article because

• it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Your references were to your own website, which is obviously not an independent third party source. Note that references should not be bare urls
• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: purpose built... state of the art... known to be the country's third largest Education System... enrollment for this language course is around 3000 students. and so on

• You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Pakieditor. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Pakieditor|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read this important guidance. You must also reply to the COI request above

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimfbleak,

I saw KJP1 message that is why I re-edited the article. I hope you read the resubmitted draft article (It was just like any other school article on Wikipedia) with quoted references from different sources, Thanks for replying me and I appreciated it. It would be really great if I can get the source code of the deleted article.

Pakieditor - talk 15:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently 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 any 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the the Portal WikiProject! In case you have not already found your way around here are some useful links:

• the general discussion talk page
• the design and ideas talk page
• a list of tasks which you can help out on
• the tasks and administration talk page

A useful template:

• {{subst:Bpsp}} - allows you to create a single-page portal with ease

Again, welcome to the project. If you need assistance with editing portals or find bugs in the automated features, feel free to post a message on one of the talk pages above. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The next issue of our newsletter will be coming out very soon.

You can get caught up with recent history of the portal system by reading our newsletter archive.

The main introduction to portals is Wikipedia:Portal.

For a list of all portals, see Category:All portals.

To create a new portal, place the code {{subst:bpsp}}[[Category:Category:Portals needing placement of incoming links]] on a blank portal page, and click on Preview.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the first issue of the new year. Enjoy...

A hearty welcome to new arrivals to the portals department:

• Emoteplump
• Pakieditor
• CASSIOPEIA
• Venomous Sniper
• DannyS712

DannyS712 has created a user script prototype, User:DannyS712/Cat links, that can pull members from a category, a functionality we've been after since the project's revamp last Spring. Now, it's a matter of applying this technique to scripts that will place the items where needed, such as in a section starter script and/or portal builder script.

There have been some discussions at Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines.

DreamyJazz is working on a bot to place links to portals on root articles, category pages, and navigation footer templates.

Portal bugs are getting dealt with soon after they are reported.

Lots of wikignome activity (using Hotcat, etc.).

Keep up the good work.    — The Transhumanist   08:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently 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) 15:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid ethnic profiling as you did in this comment, which is not permitted in ARBIPA topics. All editors of Wikipedia are expected to follow Neutral Point of View to the best of their ability, including you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a visually intensive portal, see Portal:Hummingbirds.

If you find any other portals that stand out, please send me the links so I can include them in the next issue. Thank you.

There are about 1100 portals left in the old style, with subpages and static excerpts. As those are very labor intensive to maintain (because their maintenance is manual), all those except the ones with active maintainers (about 100) are slated for upgrade = approximately 1000. We started with 1500, and so over a quarter of them have been processed so far. That's good, but at this rate, conversion will take another 3 years. So, some automation (AWB?) is in order. We just need to keep at it, and push down on the gas pedal a bit harder.

You can find the old-style portals with an insource search of "box portal skeleton".

Speaking of upgrades...

The following portals are listed in the header at the top of Wikipedia's Main Page, and get far more traffic than all other portals:

1. Portal:Arts
2. Portal:Biography
3. Portal:Geography
4. Portal:History
5. Portal:Mathematics
6. Portal:Science
7. Portal:Society
8. Portal:Technology

Of those, all but one have been revamped to an automated self-updating single-page design.

The remaining one, Portal:Mathematics has manual maintainers, and has been partially upgraded.

As these are our flagship fleet, they need to be kept in top-notch condition.

Check 'em out, and improve them if you can.

And be sure they are on your watchlist.

Keep 'em coming!

As you know, thousands of the new portals are orphans, that is, having no links to them from article space. For all practical purposes, that means they are not part of the encyclopedia yet, and readers will be unlikely to find them.

What is needed are links to these portals from the See also sections of the corresponding root articles.

Dreamy Jazz to the rescue...

Dreamy Jazz has created a bot to place the corresponding category link to the end of each portal (if it is missing), and place a link to each portal in the See also section of the corresponding root articles.

That bot, named User:Dreamy Jazz Bot, is currently in its trial period performing the above described edits!

To take a look at the edits it has made so far, see Special:Contributions/Dreamy_Jazz_Bot.

It shouldn't be long before the bot is processing the entire set of new portals.

Good news indeed.

Way to go, Dreamy Jazz!

That's all I have to report this time around.

No doubt there will be more to tell soon.

Until then,    — The Transhumanist   13:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quicky status report:

Old-style portals: 1,018

Single-page portals: 4,367

Total portals: 5,385

But of course, there has been more going on than just that...

Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved and is now up and running.

What it does is places missing links to orphaned portals. It places a link in the See also section of the corresponding root article, and it puts one at the top of the corresponding category page.

We have thousands of new portals that have yet to be added to the encyclopedia proper, just waiting to go live.

When they do go live, over the coming days or weeks, due to Dreamy Jazz Bot, it will be like an explosion of new portals on the scene. We should expect an increase in awareness and interest in the portals project. Perhaps even new participants.

Get ready...

Get set...

Go!

User:Emoteplump, a recent contributor to the portals project, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely blocked user.

When that happens, admins endeavor to eradicate everything the editor contributed. This aftermath has left a wake of destruction throughout the portals department, again.

The following portals which have been speedy deleted, are in the process of being re-created. Please feel free to help to turn these blue again:

And the corresponding talk pages:

Until next time,    — The Transhumanist   09:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where we are at:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

You might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community).

Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks!

Here's a link to the dramatic discussion:

https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Indefinitely_semiprotecting_the_refdesk#Proposal_II:_Shut_down_the_Ref_Desks

The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task...

Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch.

For the portals he/she restarted (many of which were done mistakenly, overwriting restarts and further development that had already been done), and/or tagged as the maintainer, see https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=User:Emoteplump&oldid=881568794#Additional_Portals_under_my_watch

We're at 5,705 portals and counting.

Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that.

There are 5 drives for portal development:

1. Create new portals
2. Expand existing portals, such as with new sections like Recognized content
3. Convert or restart old-style portals into automated single-page portals
4. Link to new portals from the encyclopedia
5. Pageless portals

Let's take a closer look at these...

Portal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.

Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script.

Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain.

The portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...

• Improving and/or adding search parameters to better power the Did you know and In the news sections.
• Adding more selected content sections, like Selected biographies.
• Adding and maintaining Recognized content sections, via JL-Bot.
• Adding pictures to the image slideshow.
• Adding panoramic pics.
• Categorizing portals.

More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy, make a wish.

By far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place.

There are two approaches here:

A) Restart a portal from scratch, using our automated tools. For basic no-frills portals, that works find. But, for more elaborate portals, as that tends to lose content and features, the following approach is being tried...

B) Upgrade a portal section by section, so little to nothing is lost in the process.

Or "portal deorphanization"...

Dreamy Jazz Bot is purring along.

And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter.

See below...

Saved portals, are portals with a saved page.

What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression?

Quantum portals.

What are quantum portals?

Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page.

Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:

...portals that exist only as a probability function (algorithm) until you collapse the wave form by observing through the portal button (run the script), and disappear again after use...

Introducing...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals (see it's talk page).

...'til next time,    — The Transhumanist   10:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Describe this edit. All I see is that you removed Indian rebuttal and replaced sources with a Pakistani source (news.pk) while claiming that you are replacing with "international sources". Shashank5988 (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tried my best to add those that don't contain bias information. Pakieditor (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to add non-biased sources, please add sources that are not Indian or Pakistani. As these two countries are the two major parties in the standoff, almost all sources from these countries will be biased. Additionally, do not add sources from allies of these two countries. And for clarification, this does not mean remove existing Indian and Pakistani sources. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA and Shashank5988: I guess CNN international is also a Pakistani source. See my old edit, that sparked this debate, and ended up blocking me. Kind Regards; Pakieditor (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Already warned you before,[1] this is second time you are getting the warning.

People have better things to do and edit than entertain your WP:IDHT forever. You failed to convince people to support your version, now get over it. Content is afterall reliably sourced, so there should be least concern.

There is also a section on talk page where you can respond instead of edit warring. ML ^talk 03:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have no rights to ban other users in Wikipedia, so don't copy paste wiki-warning messages in my user page. I am not involved in an edit war with you, but I am doing my work to remove disruptive/nationalism edits by users like you in articles like JF-17. Don't warn me in my talk page, and don't act like an admin. Stop undoing my edits in article JF-17 and in its talk page. Pakieditor (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure for blocking (which is not the same thing as banning) as user starts with any ordinary editor warning the disruptive editor, then if the disruption continues and uninvolved administrator is called in to see if anyone needs to be blocked. And yes, it sometimes happens that the person filing the complain is the one who gets blocked; see WP:BOOMERANG. So while it is true that My Lord cannot block you, he certainly can report you and have an administrator look into your behavior and decide whether to block you.

Are you absolutely sure that you want to request that warnings not be posted to your talk page? If you do that, anyone is free to file a complaint at WP:ANI without warning you first. What most people do when they receive a warning when they believe that they haven't done anything wrong is to simply delete the warning with an edit summery such as "I didn't edit war". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder 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. See BRD for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In place of expressing your sentiments, better explain your edits. Any further edit warring will be reported. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shashank5988 and Guy Macon: I am not involved in an edit war. I am just modifying disruptive edits, so that it is more related to JF-17 article. I am not reverting or undoing edits, instead User:My Lord was responsible for all the reverts by also undoing my neutral edits, however if I have done a mistake, then I personally apologize for that.
Kind Regards; Pakieditor (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562

Total portals: 5,578

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
7. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
8. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
9. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
10. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
12. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
13. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
14. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
15. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
16. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
17. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
18. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
19. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
20. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
21. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
22. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
23. Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

Keep on keepin' on.    — The Transhumanist   03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Jimfbleak and Guy Macon: I just wanted to clarify that I am not paid by the school or by anyone in my entire life for a Wikipedia article. The only connection with the school I have is that I am a student of it. Its brother school, Roots Millennium Schools, had an article, so I thought why not give this school an article, again no one in the school told me to do this, and neither it would had created an impact on my reputation in the school. I apologise that the creation of this article was against WP:Not here policy, but as a new editor and a 16 year old, I didn't knew about these rules in Wikipedia. Calling me 'useless' for this encyclopedia hurts me, because my other edits had a purpose, especially the work I had done in the portals. I was maintaining Portal:Pakistan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistani railways and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistani roads. Wiki-markup is easy, when you know html and a little CSS, so reading the docs. provided for Portal creation enabled me to maintain portals. This is more than just an unblock request, I just wanted to showcase you about my side of the story. Apologise for all mistakes committed by me.
Kind Regards: Pakieditor (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My only involvement with the Roots Schools issue is this:

I was investigating whether you were edit warring on the CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder page. Because I have not yet looked at the entire editing history of everyone involved, I don't know (yet) who is at fault in that case, but I do know that several editors were edit warring on that page.

In the process of investigating your edit history, it became clear that you had previously edited under another name. Because I am not an administrator (I refuse to run for that office despite several admins urging me to do so) I could not follow your edit history back -- doing that would require looking at the page history of a deleted page and only admins can do that.

So I did the standard thing one does in that situation asked the deleting admin what name you had used before. You can see that request at User talk:Jimfbleak#Draft:Roots International Schools. Note that I did not complain about your behavior; like I said, I get all the facts before I conclude that someone did or did not do something wrong.

While my inquiry was no doubt the trigger for Jimfbleak blocking you for editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest, I am only looking into the edit warring at CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. Please don't attempt to get me involved in the COI issue. That's between you and him. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so let's talk about the edit warring at CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder.

When I saw the edit warring, I took the following steps:

• I used the standard edit warring template to warn all of the edit-warring users who had either not gotten a warning or who got a warning and rejected it (that would be you).

• I posted discretionary sanctions warnings on the talk pages of all of the edit-warring users who had not gotten one in the last 12 months.

• Per WP:STATUSQUO I restored the last stable version from before the edit war[2] and encouraged you and all of the other edit-warring users to read WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT and discuss things on the talk page instead of edit warring.

• I started going through the edit histories of all of the edit-warring users, and was pondering whether to ask for blocks, topic bans, or page protection if the edit warring continued.

• You (Pakieditor) continued edit warring[3] and made it clear that you refuse to leave the last stable version from before the edit war up while you discuss things on the talk page instead of edit warring.

At this point the page was protected and you were blocked. I approve of the protection and have no opinion one way or the other about the block. What I do know is that you have so far refused to stop edit warring and have given no indication that you are willing to ever stop. If you get unblocked, the page gets unprotected, and you continue edit warring, I will take you to arbitration enforcement and ask that you be re-blocked for edit warring. You can avoid that happening by taking the advice posted at Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder#Now that the page is protected.... I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Thanks for the information, It reminded me about the mistakes (really appreciated it). By the way, before the page was fully protected I actually wrote that I am giving up on Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder#Edit war, please ignore the unsigned text: "It seems that my positive changes are just being blindly reverted by you.", as it was not written by me. Also I don't have any links with other accounts that first created the article Roots School System. My article was/is Roots International Schools. As for the block is concerned, then its expiry is undefined, so maybe I may not be unblocked, but I hope that doesn't happen.
Peace, Pakieditor (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC) :}[reply]

You say that you didn't know about our policies, but this message is explicit about having to declare a conflict of interest. It said "You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it... Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message." It seems that as with the edit warring issue @Guy Macon: has mentioned, you simply chose to ignore guidance and policies you didn't like, and to pretend that you hadn't seen or understood the warning cuts no ice. The fact that you switched to ip editing after my warning suggests that you did understand the warning but chose to avoid clarifying your position.

Only now, once action has been taken because of your disruptive editing and unwillingness to abide by our T&C are you showing any sort of awareness.:To request an unblock, place {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on this page, and an uninvolved admin will review your request. Note that if you are unblocked, any further failures to comply with our policies will just get you blocked again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Sir the IP address that is replying in the talk page of jf-17 is not my IP address, and since my ban I haven't edited any article with this or my other IP addresses of other devices. You can check my IP address. That IP address might even be not from Islamabad, which is my city.
Sincerely, Pakieditor (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the ip editing of the Roots School article I was referring to Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Now I get it. Sorry for the mistake, though now that being said, I'll hope that I'll be able to write a good unblock request after this, Insha'Allah.
Thanks, Pakieditor (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: Delete my Portal if it doesn't meet the criteria, though I tried to make it unique, however my advice would be to fix these portals rather than deleting them. I tried to make Portal:Economy of Pakistan unique with the automated system. Surprise to see that action is now being taken against the new Portal system after a year since its introduction. Look at country related portals that used to look beautiful, but now are destroyed, e.g, Portal:Saudi Arabia, Portal:Algeria, Portal:Iran; but instead action was taken on Portal:Pakistan that benefitted from these modifications (just saying).Commenting from an IP-address as Pakieditor (please don't consider this IP address as a shockpuppet). Kind Regards; User: Pakieditor 21:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, Meszzy2, and Robert McClenon: A lot of hard work has been gone into my portals, so my advice would be to fix these portals rather than deleting them. I tried to make Portal:Economy of Pakistan, Portal:Roads in Pakistan, Portal:Islamic Golden Age and Portal:Rawalpindi unique with the automated system. Surprise to see that action is now being taken against the new Portal system after a year since its introduction. By the way I haven't been paid by anyone to make these portals, and Wikipedia admins falsely accused me of being a paid editor just because I made an article on my school (Roots International Schools, Roots School System btw these are not my only published articles, and most of my articles are alive in Wikipedia) a year ago doesn't make me a paid editor. As for my stubborn response is concern, then the only excuse I have is that what do you expect from a 16 year old teen. I just want you all to read the Roots School case discussion above this section of my talk page, before blindly accusing me as a paid editor. I will write an unblock request in my free time. Keep up the good work, but next time be more careful. Still surprise from this Portal drama, I thought I was doing good to Wikipedia.
With kind regards and respect; Pakieditor (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt the portals, the big picture is that consensus has turned strongly against the automated portal system. Its inventor has been topicbanned as a spammer, and his spam is being deleted. See e.g. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox.

These are not articles. They are navigational devices, and they add nothing to their respective head articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments. First, I am not entirely sure why, but I find the statement by this editor that they are not and have not been a paid editor to be persuasive. User:Jimfbleak, if you blocked them for paid editing, please consider my view. On the other hand, if you blocked them largely for repeated edit-warring, they haven't addressed that.

Second, User:Pakieditor, you say that a lot of hard work has gone into your portals. I believe that. I also don't know what you are suggesting be done to fix them. I think that much of it has been useless hard work. I do not understand why some editors believe that every major topic should have a portal. As various editors including User:BrownHairedGirl have observed (but she has described her observations in detail), many portals are simply inferior versions of the head article. I don't, in general, see what the value is of portals, but I understand that some editors and some readers like them, but they are unhelpful and harmful if they are not maintained. Unless there is value to the portal, fixing them will just be reducing the brokenness of something that cannot be unbroken.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I believe that your points about the new Portal system are valid. I believe that portals should be kept as a separate entity on its own, but unfortunately that time I thought that what 'Transhumanist' was doing was something that most of Wikipedians were considering, and I thought that this was maybe the future of Portals in Wikipedia. Personally speaking I hate the new automated Portal design and layout, but the only thing I like about them are their new codes...Pakieditor (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, in view of your comments, I'm inclined to give one last chance, pinging admin User:BrownHairedGirl for info. Pakieditor, please stick carefully to our guidelines. Any more disruption or edit warring, I'll block again and be less open to persuasion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much User:Jimfbleak. Insha'Allah! I will be more careful from now on, and I hope I will not upset you. With kind Regards; Pakieditor (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

• Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
• The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
• They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

• Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
• The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
• Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates

the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface. But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   00:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HI Pakieditor

Portal:Pakistan Super League was deleted on 21 May 2019 per the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pakistan Super League.

Yet on 28 June you re-created it[4].

If you believe that the deletion discussion was closed wrongly, you make open a WP:Deletion review. But it is highly disruptive to do what you did, namely re-creating the deleted page in breach of the consensus.

I will now delete the portal again per WP:G4.

Please note that repeated re-creation of deleted pages may lead to WP:Sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:'-( Pakieditor (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Lapablo were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Interloop Limited and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Interloop Limited, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lapablo (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pakieditor! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Lapablo (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Islamabad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islamabad until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interloop Limited, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roots International Schools is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roots International Schools 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. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Please do have a look at following articles

• Aurats
• Draft:Aurats (word)
• Islamic advice literature
• Islamic literature

Please do support in article expansions if any of above interests you.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am EMsmile, and I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve SDG-related articles on Wikipedia. We are organising this online SDG edit-a-thon during Global Goals Week, 18-26 September 2020. Please take part in it! If you have any questions about this work, please feel free to ask your question on the event's talk page here. The event page itself is here. EMsmile (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am EMsmile, and I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve climate change-related articles on Wikipedia. We are organising the "Wiki4Climate" online edit-a-thon from 24 November to 1 December 2020. Please take part by registering here. This event is organised by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) and Future Climate for Africa (FCFA). If you have any questions about this event, please feel free to ask your question on the event's talk page here. Please also join us in the event's Slack channel for easier communication and to make this into a collaborative effort. To join the Slack channel, please click here.

We also recommend this new guide to you: Guide: How to contribute climate change information to Wikipedia (Baker, E., McNamara, L., Mackay, B., and Vincent, K. (2020). How to contribute climate change information to Wikipedia: A guide for researchers, practitioners and communicators. Cape Town: Climate and Development Knowledge Network and Future Climate for Africa). EMsmile (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article F-7, Islamabad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F-7, Islamabad 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.

Akronowner (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pakieditor. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Akhuwat University, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Lahore members has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pakieditor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Akhuwat University".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Transport in Islamabad. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NGEO, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Islamabad Dry Port and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Islamabad Dry Port, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Transport in Islamabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shamsabad. 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) 05:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H-8, Islamabad, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You created an image that is used in that article; I am not sure if this is correct since the description doesn't explain clearly how AI was used in this. In either case, I'd like to invite you to the discussion at Talk:Computational_creativity#Merge_from_Artificial_imagination,_Creative_computing_and_Artificial_intelligence_art. I also created the category commons:Category:Computational creativity and I added your picture there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PSL PORTAL INVITE has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP Pakistan action box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Airlift Pakistan logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Draft:Just for ref has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tarnol, Islamabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anarkali (Lahore Metro), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/Lahore Metro left/Orange has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/Lahore Metro right/Orange has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, GPO (Lahore Metro), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. The references in the article mention the Orange Line but not this station.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MB 05:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Pakieditor I wanted to give you a heads up that I sent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union councils of Pakistan to AfD. Normally this is done when you want to delete an article, that is not what I am proposing. I want to send this article to Draft so it can be worked on and improved. This will prevent someone else from nominating it for deletion and give the article time to have it's problems addressed. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lahore Metro stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pakieditor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Just for ref, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pakieditor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:GPO (Lahore Metro), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Akevsharma was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shifa International Hospital and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Akevsharma (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pakieditor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "GPO".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Shifa International Hospital. Thanks! Fade258 (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Ghalbeyakh per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huda-omr. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to appeal against the recent block imposed on my account, where I have been mistakenly accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Ghalbeyakh or User:TronFactor and alleged involvement in the article Qatari soft power.

I would like to emphasize that I have no connection whatsoever with User:TronFactor and User:Ghalbeyakh or any affiliation with the purported group related to the article Qatari soft power. Until recently, I was entirely unaware of the user User:TronFactor and Ghalbeyak and their associated group, and I did not know the existence of the mentioned article.

Contrary to the accusations, I am a university student currently residing in Pakistan. My activities on Wikipedia are limited to using Pakistani IP addresses, in stark contrast to the accused users who predominantly use German IPs. Additionally, I have no awareness or association with the Nimbleway network, as suggested in the investigation. I do want to clarify that due to censorship situation in Pakistan, I sometimes have to resort to use of VPNs which may have associations with the above.

I kindly request a thorough review of the evidence presented against me, as I believe there is a misunderstanding or misattribution in this case. I am more than willing to provide any further information or clarification necessary to demonstrate my innocence in this matter.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Regards, Pakieditor

Decline reason:

Technical evidence strongly indicates that at the very least, you are the same as Elmaidandz and Abu1ameen. I havent looked further than that, because it seems evident to me that you arent being fully transparent. Request declined. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2024 (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.

@Blablubbs: I have already stated that I have used VPNs to edit Wikipedia and some of these IPs may coincidently have overlap with Elmaidandz and Abu1ameen - my actual IPs are from Pakistan. I have no idea of these usernames and have no association with them. Kindly look at my contributions, my areas of interest are completely different to them. If there is any other technical evidence against me then kindly share as I am unaware of them. Pakieditor (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93, MarioGom, and Blablubbs: If I were to be a sockpuppet, wouldn't I have known about this investigation before being banned? Some of the accused users were informed beforehand, but not me. You all are just accusing me of being someone I'm completely not just because some VPN IP address happened to match. Pakieditor (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will just say there is more to this than "some VPN IP address happened to match". Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: And why do you think that? I'm completely in the dark here. I only have this Wikipedia account, and I will do anything to not loose it. Pakieditor (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]