User talk:Sajjad Altaf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Flag of Pakistan.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Pakistan.
News This user has been mentioned by a media organisation:
  • Noam Cohen (February 9, 2014). "Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 February 2014. "One frequent mobile contributor, Sajjad Altaf, an information technology consultant in Findlay, Ohio, says he edits wherever it is more convenient for him, noting that “it is difficult to edit from the phone, but I guess not that difficult to deter me from doing it.”

Mr. Altaf has written entire Wikipedia articles on his phone, including one about Noor Pur Baghan, his hometown in Pakistan, and disputes the idea that smartphones are passive devices. “If you are using your phone, you cannot just listen but not talk,” he said. “You cannot just receive an email but not reply to it.”" 

News This user has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Smsarmad. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SMS Talk 16:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sign Your Posts[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism Section in WP:PBUH[edit]

I don't see anything at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. That's where the discussion should be taking place. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Check it now please Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've replied there. Usually new comments go at the bottom of the page so I moved the whole section there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link in Noor Pur Baghan[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noor Pur Baghan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback About WP:PBUH[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sajjad Altaf. You have new messages at Muhammad Ali Khalid's talk page.
Message added 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Road Transportation in Pakistan[edit]

Its waste of time reverting back edits. Where is it mentioned in the given reference that "Pakistan has better roads than India"? If read properly, it states that India has better road density by population and also by area. And a sentence states that India lags behind other developing countries in terms of infrastructure ecept for Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Any trustworthy references are not available on search. Moreover, you compare it yourself if you want Indian Roads. Revert your edit yourself if you feel I am right. ChitranshGaurav 12:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chitransh,

Original edit was not done by me, it was done by someone else and I am sure it was added after doing a thorough research. When something is added to a document it should only be removed providing correct basis.

When the edit was reverted by you, I checked the reference document to find the basis for initial add and then I tried to find the basis for your revert, I found the basis for initial add but did not find the basis for your revert.

The basis I found for initial add was on page 4. There is a table there which has a column named "Paved roads %" and lists the comparison between the countries which shows that India has 62.6% of it's roads paved compared to Pakistan's 64.7%. Bangladesh and Indonesia has a lesser percentage than Pakistan as well. That table was the basis for initial add. I was just trying to preserve the integrity of the document. I do not think anything should be removed from the document unless there is something out there to counterfeit the claim.

The text in article "Pakistan" only talks about road system being better than India and not about the whole transportation system which is true considering the paved road comparison. More paved roads means better road system.

In the very next sentence it talks about what Pakistan lags behind of India and I think the whole text combined was best, fair and impartial assessment. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, But we cannot compare the roads on that basis alone. In the same reference in other tables, it is mentioned that road density by area and by population is better in India (Page no. 6). This is another vital indicator for road infrastructure. I forgot to mention this in the above post and that was the basis of my reply. But I am not an experienced, regular wikipedian, so I totally leave it up to you to remove it or not. But, if taken: paved roads means better roads system, then I agree with you. Regards. ChitranshGaurav 08:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Akbar I[edit]

hello, thank you for your message. The Mughal emperors link is already included at the bottom in the navigation link, therefore it does not have to be included again under see also. And I don't see what Mughal weapons have to do with Akbar himself, unless there is a specific weapon that can be attributed to him or his time. Gryffindor (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

New York Times calling[edit]

Hi Sajjad -- I write about Wikipedia for the New York Times, and I am trying to look at how Wikipedia is incorporating editing via mobile phone. I noticed that you have edited exclusively via mobile phone. If you have the time and inclination to discuss your editing experiences can you drop me an email at noam@nytimes.com. Looking forward to speaking with you. chomsky1 16:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Chomsky1

Images in Pakistan[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Pakistan, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The image used does not violate non-free image policy, I am placing it back while we discuss and come to a conclusion whether it violates non-free usage policy or not.
P.S. You folks really like to slap warnings on newcomers, I don't think it is the best of the ways to start a conversation. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link in "List of people from Jhelum"[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people from Jhelum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a good example[edit]

It's good that your editing fr/ your mobile device, BUT Noor Pur Baghan wasn't a good example to place in the NYTimes. Most of the information comes from an unverifiable primary source--yourself--which is against Wikipedia editing guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Regards Tapered (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely respect your opinion but honestly I do not work for New York Times.

New York Times is an independent media and they make their own decisions.

Article by Noam Cohen does not talk about authenticity of article Noor Pur Baghan.

The mention of the article is in terms of a Wikipedian who mostly edits from his mobile device.

People can criticize Obama for going to war with Libya and people can criticize him for not going to war with Iran.

Opinions differ and we got to respect them.

Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia[edit]

Hi My name is Kenan. I am the mobile product manager for the Wikimedia foundation. I see that you have thoughts on mobile editing and I'd love to talk to you about your mobile editing habits and opinions. What is the best way for me to contact you? Thanks! --KWang (WMF) (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot provide my email address or phone number here unless you want to provide me yours so I can contact you otherwise we can talk here.
You can refer to my user page here and refer to the section "Improvement Suggestions for Wikipedia Mobile Editor" for improvement suggestions that I have posted there. Then let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! It'd be great if you could email me at kwang@wikimedia.org! --KWang (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Pakistan[edit]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm from WikiProject Pakistan. We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me or at the Wikiproject Pakistan noticeboard and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We are looking forward to see you around! Mar4d (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, i did not know about such a project, i will surely like to be part of an endeavor like that, i have seen stuff marked for deletion about Pakistan and had no idea how to save it from occurring for example an image of Now or Never was deleted from Wikipedia Commons recently and i could not do anything about it except just to feel sorry about it.
P.S. You are the first administrator who welcomed me to Wikipedia, otherwise i felt like i am being pushed back and discouraged, so thank you for that as well.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome :) Would be great to see you in the project. The Pakistani community on Wikipedia is quite small and we always encourage more and more active users to join our folds. Feel free to contact me or leave messages on the Pakistan WikiProject noticeboard for any queries. PS: I am not an admin, just another user who edits here. As far as I know, there is no Pakistani admin on the English Wikipedia. Though I am sure I wouldn't mind being one :) Mar4d (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summary Notice[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Green Giant (edits) (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I thought, it was optional, it says right there in the summary field. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Findlay City School District[edit]

Information.svg Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edits may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! Super48paul (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have reviewed WP:NOT and i don't think this content falls under the list of content which cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link in Maula Jatt[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maula Jatt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rangeela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part I)[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Noor Pur Baghan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I disagree that i violated three revert rule yet. It was only two reverts. I am not sure how you are counting them. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Sajjad, I would like to note a couple of points that I have observed regarding the issues that are being taken up at various places:
  1. Starting with Professor Iqbal Azeem, you say that "Professor Iqbal Azeem" is his common name and per WP:UCN it should be the article title. Can you prove that "Professor Iqbal Azeem" is more common than "Iqbal Azeem"? Because a simple Google search tells different story. Also the only source cited in the article is an unreliable source.
  2. Noor Pur Baghan. I have been watching this article since you posted a related message at WT:PAK. What I saw there was that some experienced users were already there and had made you known their concerns regarding the content of the article. Since I shared the same concerns as them so I felt my involvement would more likely discourage you, that I didn't want to happen. Even if you had not posted a message at WT:PAK, I would have landed at that article somehow and did the same what Sitush did regardless of whoever has written it. You would find in my contributions similar edits to a number of articles. The source (Google Maps) you are using is unreliable for the content you are using it for. As described earlier most of the place tags at Google Maps is a User Generated Content. Anyone can place them and anyone can request to alter them. I also have a concern regarding images at that article, I find some of them at Facebook. Can you please verify that you own them and they comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy.
  3. About H. A. Rose as a source. It is not just Sitush's opinion, a number of editors agree that Rose's work about subcontinent's castes is not a reliable source. And a number of editors trust Sitush when it comes to South Asia's castes/tribes/social groups.
  4. I do like to comment on your AfD comments/!voting as I do find them problematic but I would not until some of them are closed. But I suggest you should read Deletion policy, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
  5. About Sitush's edit following your comment at a deletion discussion. It was natural reaction to your comment (that I already said I find problematic). A user if finds some problems with another user's edits, it is likely that he will check his other edits also and is permitted at Wikipedia (with some exceptions). So I suggest you should Assume Good Faith and concentrate more on the problems identified.
  6. About Three revert rule. It is just a bright line that if crossed is definitely going to get you blocked. But you can even get blocked if you have not crossed this line but were edit warring.
I don't want you to be discouraged by all of this, just want you to learn more about how things work here. Many of us had similar problems with our editing when we joined some editors like me have been through bigger blunders, so try to listen what other advise you. -- SMS Talk 14:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Smsarmad, i appreciate your detailed message and i appreciate you helping me in the past. I would also like to assure you that my intent to oppose deletion of HYM was only to save that article from deletion and not to oppose you as an editor and i thank you for not taking the wrong way as some other people did. On a personal level, i cannot thank you enough for helping me in the past with a policy page. For future also, i want to assure you that if any edit of mine have an opposite feeling of your view point, please do not take it personal and consider it an effort to improve Wikipedia. Now i answer you point by point:
  1. Professor Iqbal Azeem, i am sure you watch Pakistani TV channels as well, you must have watched TV shows where he is only mentioned as Professor Iqbal Azeem, as for resources, i am working on to find them although i do not see that many out there but i want this great person on Wikipedia, i personally appreciate his literary work, the source i see online all refer to him as Professor Iqbal Azeem. I will try my best to prove that Professor Iqbal Azeem is more common. While we are here, i will like to ask you how to post Professor Iqbal Azeem's publicly available photo, i do not think it has to be my own work to post, as i see a lot of photos on Commons from public domain, they are not person's own work. When ever i go to add a photo, i have only one option which is to add my own work, i do not say anywhere to specify that this is not my own work and it is publicly available photo and i do not think there is a licence required to post.
  2. Noor Pur Baghan, I totally understand concerns about not having proper sources about that but i see plenty of articles with citation needed tag but information is there and not removed but this article is being treated differently and it only happened after it was mentioned in NYTimes. Now regarding Google Maps, you did not mention what content it is unreliable for? Are you saying it cannot be used at all or it can be used for existence of the place itself but not for the landmarks in it? I would like it to be used for every thing though. I understand it being user generated but hey Wikipedia is user generated as well. Regarding photos, yes i own them and i am admin of those facebook pages and moreover those photos are publicly available.
  3. H. A. Rose as a source, i understand that a number of editor might agree about his work but i think to me he is more reliable about having a well written book out there than number of editors who do not have any literary work, they cannot be just considered an authority over an author and his book. I am also not sure what is the basis to trust Sitush when it comes to South Asia's caste? Is there a research done by Sitush or because he has over 119,000 edits and i have only over 600 so he is considered more qualified on each and every subject. I would still like H. A. Rose's work to be considered as a reliable source for Phaphra to establish notability and keep the article from being deleted as i do not see why an author would lie about mere existence of a tribe. I have checked the noticeboard you referred to having any mention about H. A Rose's work so it's basically Sitush's opinion or a few other editors opinion who feel strongly about British Raj authors and i do not think those personal opinions should matter once it comes to Wikipedia so i would like to use him as a source in Phaphra. If i let it go here, this issue is going to arise somewhere in the future.
  4. Afd comments/voting, so i am not sure what did you find problematic, me voting in there at all or only some of my comments and if so which comments you think were problematic, i would definitely consider avoiding them in the future if you let me know which ones.
  5. Sitush's edits, first of all jumping from deletion discussion to my recent edits, i do not think it was natural, you have to have some type of bigotry deep down in your heart to do that. The attitude was some thing like "you dare to oppose me, let me teach you a lesson, let me go ahead and revert all your edits that you recently made regardless of what they are" and it was not only about Noor Pur Baghan having unsourced content, he reverted my edits on Dulla Bhatti which had a proper source and he did not realize out of his rage and prejudice that there is a source present which later on he realized and i thanked him for that. He reverted my edits in Maula Jatt ignoring WP:WTAF only because they were done by me. You see the reason here was me and my edits. Also I might not have felt that strongly about that if Sitush would not have used hateful and aggressive speech in his summary lines, it felt personal to me. Yes, you might be right what you are doing but there are ways to do it and that was not the way to do it, i don't think it was professional of him at all. This is not social media, you are doing a literary work and you should watch what you are saying and how you are saying it. Does any of Wikipedia's policies apply on admins or they only apply on newcomers. Does only newcomers get blocked by violating 3RR rules or an admin can be blocked as well?

Thanks again for your post and i look forward to working with you to improve Wikipedia. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Sajjad, I'm only going to make a brief comment and will let Smsarmad (talk · contribs) help you out with the rest. My comment is that there really isn't any such thing as a "qualified" contributor on Wikipedia. We're all on the same level and we are all supposed to use reliable sources rather than our own knowledge, so qualifications don't really come into it. However, there are various levels of experience here and that can make a difference to how people approach things. We're not supposed to bite the newbies but the Indo-Pak area is so contentious in many respects and is so lacking in decent editors that things can tend to blow up a bit more often than, say, on articles relating to butterflies or snakes or clouds.
Listen to what Smsarmad says and try to take it on board. We all make mistakes - me included - but the key is to learn from them. Loads of people are willing to help you - again, me included - but any assistance can only be within the limits of our policies and guidelines: if they say something cannot be done then, unless you get the policy etc changed, it can't be done.
Hey, I've been accused of being pro-Islam and pro-Hindu, pro-Pakistan and pro-India, pro-left wing politics and pro-right wing politics ... and a host of other contradictions. When someone gets accused from all sides, they're usually neutral! - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

help

Can u help me in editing ghulam Ahmad (engineer) apparently SMS thinks everything is incorrect, just like he did with daily darting

Heman 18:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan1216 (talkcontribs)

Ghulam Ahmad (engineer)[edit]

Can u kindly hep on this article SMS has made changes which are quite disturbing, need your help

Heman 18:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan1216 (talkcontribs)

  • I will look into it and see what I can do. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Multan Division[edit]

I'm not sure if you are watching but I've replied to your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jat clans of Multan Division. You do not need to respond but I'd imagine that you'd want to address the point that I raise. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part II)[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dulla Bhatti. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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. Sitush (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, that applies to you in a same way, to me it looks like you are edit warring. I didn't want to take this route but you are making me do that. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You are responsible for your own actions. No-one is making you do anything but you are reverting both myself and Smsarmad (talk · contribs). You're going to have to get a grip, Sajjad, or your time as a Wikipedian may be limited: you've been in an awful lot of spats thus far & you show little sign of learning from them. The last thing Wikipedia needs is yet more nationalistic contributors who take offence when ever something about their country or people doesn't look good. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant that i did not want to tell you in return that you are edit warring as well, that's not me, i don't do that but when you are issuing me a warning then i am feeling like telling the same thing to you. Also i don't think Smsarmad (talk · contribs) was a revert, it was an effort to change so it makes broader sense, it would have been a revert if i would have reverted it back to Mughal Empire. I already explained myself that why i reverted you at Talk: Dulla Bhatti and User Talk: Smsarmad. I hope that's clear. I am expecting a reply at all locations so we can come to a decision regarding the edits.
Also, please do not issue me threats such as "my time as Wikipedian would be limited" because it does not benefit me at all by remaining a Wikipedian and it does not hurt me to leave Wikipedia. You have made my life quite miserable at Wikipedia while my intention was only to contribute and it actually wouldn't hurt me at all to leave Wikipedia at this point. I also already answered to your last sentence about nationalistic contributor on both talk pages, Dulla Bhatti and Smsarmad and i deny your accusations once again. Thanks Sajjad Altaf (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Dulla Bhatti shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SMS Talk 23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • @Smsarmad I don't think I violated three revert rule contrary to what you said in your summary line and as for edit warring, no intention to edit war from my side but the other side is engaged in edit war. The difference is that i am being given warnings and the other side is not getting any warnings. That's for your so called fair practices at Wikipedia. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part III)[edit]

Now you are doing it on yet another article. If you revert me anywhere in the next week without first discussing the matter then I'm going to escalate this issue. You need to slow down a bit and learn. I have no doubt that you are well-intentioned but you are being disruptive also. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well you can do whatever you want, you can escalate it to your dad. I have always stood up in my life and I will not back down when I think i am right. What do you think, what will happen, if you escalate. The worst thing will happen that i will get blocked. It's better to lose while standing up than not speaking out against injustice. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
My dad died 21 years ago and right now my mum is dying of kidney failure :( A common venue for escalating behavioural issues on Wikipedia is the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents (ANI). There are various dispute resolution avenues and, of course, admins pop up of their own accord also.
I'll give you a couple of tips about ANI. Firstly, don't go there unless you are pretty sure of your ground because things can boomerang (check that link). Secondly, the frequency of ill-judged complaints about me at ANI has caused ad admin to create a joke-y alternate recently. I can't recall ever "losing" when someone has taken me there, although that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future or (of course) that I am perfect.
The problem with being blocked is that you cannot change anything. Are you aware of the US phrase "Better to be in the tent pissing out than outside it pissing in?" That sort of sums it up. It really isn't worth getting blocked and there really is no need for it. Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus and so the best approach is to discuss and try to achieve it: if your arguments are good then you'll almost always get what you want. There will be times when you disagree with the consensus and can do nothing about it; however, unless you are particularly wayward in your thoughts, such occasions should be few. BTW, discussion through edit summary rarely works well when things are contentious: far better to take the issue to the relevant talk page.
As I've said before, I think that you mean well. You just need to dial it down a bit in order to give yourself more time to learn. - Sitush (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that did not come out right, the sentence about your dad. I went wayward when I found some of your remarks insulting and bullying-like. For example, "bull in the China shop", "not reverting for a week" and "did you read the bloody article" while I find your edits not right but you keep insisting they are right. "then in India"'s English is not right, it confuses people, it should be "then part of India", it would make more sense and the table should say medieval India, it would still be India but it would differentiate 16th century India from today's India. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I have got frustrated with you but that is because you are not learning, not because you are/were wrong per se; indeed, you've just posted another example of not learning at the Phaphra AfD.
"Part of India" makes it sound like a state when in fact it was then a tiny village of about 12 houses. I've already addressed your other point - there was no such country as "Medieval India", as indeed you have been keen to stress until recently. The article correctly indicates "medieval India" as a period, not a place. Perhaps these are subtleties of the language that are difficult to appreciate, especially if the reader's first language is not English, but they are important nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Must we say though "then in India" since it's already noted in the table that he was born in India and reader already knows while reading the article the timeline that when he was living there the place Pindi Bhattian was in India. Using your "timeline" point against you. The table says born in India, died in India and then introduction also mentions India, we don't have to again stress that Pindi Bhattian was "then in India" again in Early Life section. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I accept your point about Medieval India not being a country name and it being a name of the period and i would not stress on that anymore. What do you have to say about Indian Subcontinent, i think that represents rightyl the geographical location during that period. Don't take it as a Pakistan-centric opinion but what is the basis of saying that there was a country named India around that time. It is a proven concept though that Indian Subcontinent was always there and the region was referred such as. Are you sure that during Mughal Empire the region's name was India, Bharat or Hindustan? and what is the basis to say that? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
By far the majority of sources covering the period refer to it as India. It is easiest and most apt to reflect that majority usage. And, yes, we sort of have policies for this also! - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link in Phaphra[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Phaphra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Gujar, Mair, Awan and Akra

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Dera Ghazi Khan and Bahawalpur[edit]

I have just blocked Muhammadshahzadkhan. If I were going purely by number of reverts, I could easily have blocked you as well and I really don't like blocking one party to an edit war and not the other. Only the aggressiveness of his editing and reverting persuaded me that his conduct was at greater fault. Please don't get drawn into edit wars like that in future——the first step is always to try to discuss things on the talk page; if that fails, you can go to any number of noticeboards (WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, WP:RFPP for examples) to ask for help or admin intervention. Please be aware that if the edit warring resumes after Muhammadshahzadkhan's block expires, I'll block both parties. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for not doing that though, so what is the fine line here, i thought it was three consecutive reverts, so please let me know, do you think one revert is fine and does not constitute edit warring or two are fine as well. I am having a hard time understanding it or it all depends on admin who is doing the block. He can just come in and block anyone anytime. Help me understand please, instead of talk which never comes to a resolution what are we supposed to do if we see wrong edits happening. How about if someone removes sourced information, is adding that back fine multiple times or we cannot do that as well? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Edit warring is what was happening there: two editors reverting each others' edits repeatedly with no end in sight instead of going to the talk page and thrashing out their differences through discussion. There is a bright-line rule, the three-revert rule, which essentially means that if any editor makes four reverts to the same article within 24 hours, they run the risk of being blocked without notice by any passing admin. If you start a discussion on the talk page and the other editor refuses to engage constructively, then you can ask for help at one of the noticeboards I linked above, and there's a very good chance they'll be sanctioned. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Iqbal Azim[edit]

Hi, can you please provide a source for 2000 death - the ur.wp article has no date of death. Urdu language source is acceptable. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It would also be a good idea to change your !Vote to support the name change. It's going to happen, remaining adamant isn't a good idea. It's basically a misunderstanding on your part. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have a rather similar problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jat clans of Multan Division - you're not providing valid policy-based reasons and, as noted there, your comments do not in fact even stack up logically. I'm not suggesting that you should change to "support" but you'll most likely be ignored by the closing admin unless you can find a more coherent way to voice your opinion. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, guys, i took a little break from Wikipedia last night to give some time to my family, so i could not answer your messages in a timely manner. I will first answer In ictu oculi query. 2000 death was not added by me, someone else added it, i will do some research and find out the exact date of death but it is going to take some time, i have an Urdu source and most of the info i entered on that page was from that Urdu source, i was holding it back from adding it to the page until i was completely done entering all the biographical content to the page. Most sources i enter are being rejected by Sitush even if they are reliable sources for example here at Noor Pur Baghan, a lot of sources were added by Bhatti Rajpoot and although i myself refrained from editing that page, i have been monitoring it all that time. All those sources were reliable, some of them government sources, they were removed citing WP: CITEKILL and replaced with citation needed tag, my question is if you know there are sources out there and you are removing them by citing the policy WP: CITEKILL merely for aesthetic reasons then why are you asking for a citation using citation needed tag. I am kind of discouraged by this behavior and was thinking not to spend any more of my time to find sources but i found you taking a very positive approach and i see that your goal was to improve the page and i thank you for that and i will work on finding more sources for this page.
Now, i will answer Dougweller, as i said above that i took a little break and i still need to evaluate all the changes done to the page, i also need to work and find out more sources for the page and if i found that it is right to move the page as suggested, i will surely change my vote but definitely you asked me nicely and there are people with positive approach working on the article, changing the vote is under consideration.
Now, answering Sitush, my point of view on Jat clans of Multan Division is that it is merely a list and lists serve as an index or a glossary and they don't have to have a notability by themselves. The individual clan pages which are linked in the list are notable and list should stay as an index. Thanks and i appreciate you guys. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part IV)[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at Professor Iqbal Azeem. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Anything to do with Pakistan seems to cause you to promote an almost-nationalist agenda and you don't seem to let it go. Various behavioural issues have been explained to you by various people - you really, really need to get a grip now. Sitush (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you have a personal problem with me, evaluate the copy of Professor Iqbal Azeem before yesterday's move request, that was a draft copy written by me, it has a mention of India ten times in it. To me it looks like you are promoting a nationalist agenda and you don't like a mention of Pakistan in articles. The reference provided clearly states that he is a poet from Pakistan. What else you want? You did not get a grip in so many years and you are telling me to get a grip who just started yesterday.
Do something constructive man, your behavior have been very destructive. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Also please while evaluating an edit, try to look at the content of the edit for once in your life, instead of looking at the person who made the edit. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan[edit]

Instead of repeatedly moving Ghazanfar Ali Khan to Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, you should seek consensus via the requested move process because it was challenged on policy grounds, ie: WP:HONORIFIC. You are, yet again, being disruptive and I've got to figure out how to correct your poor efforts. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, i would start a requested move although i know i would lose since you will call your whole group to support you, lol, but i do think that i am right so i will start that process. Regarding the source you removed i think that is a reliable source and it should stay in unless you have anything to support your claim that it is a WP:SPS. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I have not and will not "call" any "group". That is an assumption of bad faith. Take a read of the WP:RM page and you'll see how things work. As for the source, take it to the article talk page before reinstating - get consensus that way. If that fails or stalls and you are still insistent then you could raise the matter at WP:RSN for a (sometimes) broader review. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I've had to revert you again at that article. You should not add statements on a promise that you'll source them at some point in the future and game the system by sticking {{cn}} on to the things. Aside from policies that you really, really should have read by now - notably, WP:V - I think you should perhaps add WP:BURDEN to your reading list. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure why are you being so hard and critical on any edits i make, this was not supposed to be a personal thing, moreover there are so many articles out there which has cn on them for years and they are left that way. My intention was not gaming the system, i just wanted to put cn tag for a little while, while i do research and add more refs. You should have let them stay there. I am not going to gain any personal benefit from them. Anyway, what can i say man.... Sajjad Altaf (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think that you are getting special treatment from me then you would be right. Usually, I would have been seeking a block by this time. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lilpiglet Warning[edit]

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dominion of Pakistan, LGBT rights in Pakistan, List of Pakistan Movement activists, Asma Jahangir, Lahore, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, amongst many more over the course of the past few days, without addressing any concerns in WP:Talk Page, (especially when you were told to stop numerous times as you are unable to provide WP:Reliable source examples and WP:WIKISTALKING]], you may be blocked from editing without further notice. lilpiglet 10:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpiglet (talkcontribs)

@Lilpiglet: I believe disruption of Wikipedia is done by you and not by me and honestly i would like this warning to come by someone other than you who is essensially invoolved in the same thing for which he/she is accusing others. I would suggest that you stop disrupting the pages you mentioned above and many more. I would not threaten you with the block and neither i am afraid of a block. I think i was protecting the pages from vandalism caused by you. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

Hi Sajjad, your edit summary here is concerning me a little. You've had a lot of policies explained to you or linked recently and I find it difficult to believe that WP:CONSENSUS has not been among them. Consensus on Wikipedia is not related to numeric majority: it is a more subtle thing, based primarily on substantive policy arguments. It has to be, otherwise articles would be steamrollered by pressure groups etc and neutrality would go out of the window. Interpreting consensus on Wikipedia can be a tricky thing and generally comes through experience. Please try to find some time to read the linked policy because it is right at the core of how Wikipedia works and if you do not understand it then you're going to continue to have problems here. - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sajjad Altaf (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Speedy Unblock, Removal of Block Tags I was not notified of an ongoing investigation and was not given a chance to defend myself which i believe i should have been given a chance. Judgement was passed without hearing me. Moreover, i was not aware of the policy on sockpuppetry altogether until i was blocked. That being said, i will like to request to be unblocked without going into nitty gritty details of how same NATted IP address can be used by multiple users and how typography can look similar since people type on the keyboard and do not use handwriting. Also as the policy itself says, there is hard to tell for sure whether person behind two account was the same or different and there is always room for doubt. I will also like to go to the assumption of all these accounts belonging to same person just to help deciding admin easier to make a decision. Even if all these accounts belonged to the same person, i don't see them being used for abuse or disruption. I don't see them voting multiple times, i don't see them working together to build a consensus. I was still learning and still not aware of many policies but i was improving and my future goal was to work on the path to make all pages in my watch list a featured article. I will also like to add that this is my first block and i think it is harsh to make first block as indefinite. I should be given a second chance especially when there is a doubt present. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 12:52 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock appeal because you have not actually responded to the allegations of sockpuppetry, instead claiming that you were not aware of the policy and that the process is (in your opinion) flawed. Did you or did you not use other accounts to support your position on articles such as Noor Pur Baghan, Dulla Bhatti and Jhelum? Yunshui  13:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sajjad Altaf (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

In response to first decline decision and second unblock request: i was reading the unblocking policy and it said something to that affect that do not claim innocence while requesting an unblock and that is why i did not want to claim innocence instead i just wanted to request an unblock. As to answer Yunshui, no i do not have any relation to those other accounts. I am not sure how CheckUser process works. There could be a possibility of same NATted IP showing up for any of those other users if there is same IP showing up. It is a possibility that they might be using same mobile carrier but since i do not have those details and i do not know how it was concluded that those accounts were related to me, i can not tell for sure what might be the case here, is it possible that IP logs can be shared with me. Also regarding Noor Pur Baghan, Jhelum and Dulla Bhatti, i do not see any policies being violated to change the concensus even if you consider all these accounts belonging to me. All the edits from those other two accounts do not support me or my point of view anywhere. At Noor Pur Baghan, Bhatti Rajpoot provided sources while i was insisting on unsourced content which i don't think called as endorsing each other. There was no dispute going on at Jhelum but it was in my watchlist and i have seen recent edits by DJ Baghi so since there was no dispute on that page between me and any other editor so edits by DJ Baghi can hardly be called to change a consensus there or supporting me in any sense. I only see one incident happening where Bhatti Rajpoot might have changed the output on Dulla Bhatti but those changes were immediately reverted by Sitush so there in no long term effect there as well. Although i do not own those accounts but consider this, if i owned those accounts, still the policy says that you can have multiple account but not use them for illegitimate reason and i don't see these accounts being used for any illegitimate reasons. What i can assure is to stay away from contributing to any pages to which those other two accounts make any future contributions so just to make sure that there is no doubt of creating a fake consensus or fake voting result in case those other accounts are unblocked as well. I can definitely assure that i can be a productive contributor and this was only my starting point and people make mistakes in the start but learn from the process. Also i would definitely not want to make any blunders under my real name. I hope you review your decision and unblock or maybe reduce the block term from indefinite to a lesser period. Let me know what assurances you need from me for the future and we can further talk to resolve this matter. Offcourse, There is always a choice of blocking me again, if you can block me once, you can block me again. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per review of SPI and discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sajjad Altaf (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Final Request: This request supplements the above two requests and should be considered along them and not alone. I am not the owner of those other two accounts but I also promise not to create any additional accounts in future and not to edit any pages to which Bhatti Rajpoot and DJ Baghi might make any future contributions. I also want to state that even if you consider that those two accounts are mine, still only additional accounts should be blocked and primary account should be allowed to edit, in this case I will request that my own account which is this account should be allowed to make edits considering if any of those two guys also did not make any unblock requests but if they make any unblock requests then the decision would be up to you. I took some time to check the contributions of those other two users for purposes of this request and I found staggering differences in interests and the pages they made contributions to, only few of them being similar to me. I am posting the contribution pages for all three accounts including mine to show you why I think and you should think too that these accounts belong to different people since their editing trend and pages interest does not match at all. They only have few pages in common: ===Bhatti Rajpoot’s Contribution Pages=== Narisara Nuvadtivongs Dulla Bhatti Noor Pur Baghan Major de Sarrià Panama Bay Next Future Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Ferik (village) Ali Ashour Baleshwari River List of mosques in Hong Kong ===DJ Baghi’s Contribution Pages=== Helen Watson (cricketer) Giddha Jhelum Noor Pur Baghan Chur railway station OSMET IRCHA Dok Khamtai District Turpin, Oklahoma Katowice urban area Oberalp Pass William John Edwards 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun Habibabad District Ronnie Simpson Baraka Pakao Jhelum District Babur Baburnama Jhelum Tehsil Wagh ===Sajjad Altaf’s Contribution Pages=== Aamir Liaquat Hussain Akbar Akbar II Allahabad Address Asma Jahangir Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan) Bahawalnagar Bahawalpur Baker Hughes Balti language Chak Jamal Chotala Daily Dharti Rawalakot Dera Ghazi Khan Dera Ghazi Khan District Dominion of Pakistan Dulla Bhatti Findlay, Ohio Findlay City School District Ganga Ram Gharmala Ghazanfar Ali Khan Ghazwatul Hind Ghulam Ahmad (engineer) Haneef Shareef Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Imran Khan Independence Day (Pakistan) Iqbal Azeem Jhelum Jhelum District Kalash language Kalash people Khukhrain LGBT rights in Pakistan Lahore List of Indian poets List of Pakistan Movement activists List of Pakistani poets List of people from Jhelum Maula Jatt Mian Nawaz Sharif Monarchy of Pakistan Multan Noor Pur Baghan Pakistan Pakistan Declaration Sanghoi Sohan Halwa Sunil Dutt Syed Hasnain Raza Naqvi Tarana-e-Pakistan Now if you go through the list of these pages, how can you say that these three users share the same interest, there won’t be even quarter of percentage similarities? If you compare the differences vs. similarities in interests there, you can straightaway tell these are all different people. Moreover I participated in voting on Talk: Iqbal Azeem and voting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan and if those accounts were mine, I would have used them to influence the result but those people did not participate in those voting. I also had disputes with Sitush and Lilpiglet on quite a few pages but those accounts did not participate to influence the consensus but if those were mine I must have used them to my benefit. You should consider these facts. Here is the list of pages where I had dispute with Lilpiglet and Sitush, you can check talk pages for more information on those: Talk:Tarana-e-Pakistan Talk:Pakistan Talk:Pakistan Declaration Talk:Monarchy of Pakistan Talk:LGBT rights in Pakistan Talk:Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Talk:Ghazanfar Ali Khan Talk:Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan) Talk:Allahabad Address You can also see the personal insults hurled at me by Lilpiglet at Talk:LGBT rights in Pakistan and my calm and cool responses to those insults. I am just using this as an example of a good behavior which you can consider as well. So this is my final request with a promise not to create any future duplicate accounts and stay away from any pages where those other two accounts make any future contributions. Thanks for consideration Sajjad Altaf (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Holy crap, please read WP:TLDR and WP:GAB for future unblock requests. You have been advised of the standard offer, which may be your best case here. Note: unblock in 6 months is not guaranteed - we actually recommend you go do some work elsewhere to prove yourself. However, your last post to this page directed to Sitush has shown me that you're not ready to even think about rejoining the community - that was an unacceptable use of this talkpage while blocked. You seem to continue to hold a WP:BATTLE mentality, which is not welcome. DP 16:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

  • You are saying that you were not aware of the Sockpuppetry policy. So are you accepting that you used multiple accounts? -- SMS Talk 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Even if we accepted the unlikely, there would seem still to be the problem of WP:MEAT in play. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding this account's assurances and credibility, I think it's helpful to read the SPI [1] and consider the comments by DJ Baghi, style of writing, expression and even the tone of denial, followed immediately by a plea for leniency; WP:QUACK. Only here the drama is ratcheted up with the fresh concern of public shame. JNW (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Guys, what do you want me to do going forward in order to get me unblocked, let me know please, is there a second chance here? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You are still trying to muddy the waters with your unblock requests, instead of accepting your mistake. Even if CU wasn't involved the case was pretty much strong and could have been decided on behavioral grounds alone. And to your claim that these accounts were not used for any abuse, both of these accounts were used for edit warring on multiple articles adding the same/similar content as you were doing. One can have more than one accounts but not for this purpose and usually those other accounts are declared. If we accept for a moment that these accounts were not used by a single person, they were still used in an unacceptable way (WP:MEAT, as Sitush mentioned), as Bhatti Rajpoot admitted himself he was called here. So it is not the time to find loop holes in the policies or the working of CU/SPI. You are not going to get unblocked this way. -- SMS Talk 21:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
@Smsarmad, i am not trying to muddy the waters, i have a choice of submitting an unblock request and i am using that choice, that is because i want to forget about the past and move on and keep contributing and i think i deserve a second chance. One mistake even if there is one should not block you indefinitely. I would definitely accept my mistake if i have made a mistake but two users somewhere in the world choose to edit the same pages where i made some edits. That was not my choice, now if you guys still think that was my mistake then i will accept it only on the promise that i will be unblocked although it would be an imposition on me. According to Bhatti Rajpoot's claim on his page, it does not seem like he is saying that he was called there. It seems like he is saying that he was automatically presented with some pages which needed improvement and tried to improve. To me it seems like the automatic prompt which i also got when i joined Wikipedia. It appears on top of your screen saying something like "you can help improve these pages by helping with grammar and sources" and then it also asks you whether you want to help improve another page and you can keep going if you want to. That being said i will submit my final request with all the data i can collect to make my case about why i think and you should think also that those accounts were not mine and even if you consider them that they were mine, i will make the case that you should think that they were not created or used with a bad intent because if they were mine, i would have used them to influence the move vote at Iqbal Azeem, i would have used them to influence the votes at AFDs, i would have used them on other pages where i had disputes with Sitush and Lilpiglet and i would not have gone to ANI for resolution. I mean you guys should consider all these aspects as well. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@Sajjad Altaf: I am not sure why you are mentioning me when you should be convincing the administrators about dubious behaviour and posting edits using multiple accounts. Once again, you have not addressed the matter at hand and are tiptoeing around the subject matter. Furthermore, this was not the only violation you had committed, as there were numerous others. You are right we do make mistakes but yours were repetitive and seemed to not care bout WP:Policies. In fact, I had once told you stop WP:hounding to which you yourself in your User:Sajjad Altaf#Lilpiglet Warning said, "neither i am afraid of a block".
Furthermore, I would address that this user did seem to have a good knowledge of WP:policies so it would come to me a real surprise that he was unaware of wp:sock. From my experience, it seemed as if he had read many wikipedia policies but at the same time was WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
User:Sajjad Altaf that you have mentioned me on here, I will address the concurs that I, as well as many other editors were having. Will spare the details, but you were quite disruptive with your edits; similar syntax different pile that you had committed in various articles without any WP:reliable sources (which you actually admitted to); not to mention your strong W:POV. We all have a learning curve and inherent bias, but with so many edits with various accounts, one would hope that your behaviour would have improved. There were many times where you made false allegations about me to wither discredit me/edits (or both); which I think shocked you as it was completely ignored.
At that point, it became clear that sooner or later someone would compile some research about your behaviour on here. You had been numerously warned in various talk pages by other editors as well as myself after addressing the the concern on your wall about W:WIKISTALKING, at which point your edits escalated and I realized I was wasting time on someone who was involved in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Then very recently you went as far as completely removed content in the Dominion of Pakistan, while at the same time removing content relating to the British as as well former Pakistani Monarch which clearly showed your lack of knowledge on the history of Pakistan; lack of understanding of what a Dominion is; as well as not understanding the responsibilities of a Governor General; the irony. You were in his own words, "confrontational", and went about wanting to label things which you had no knowledge about as "controversial" (perhaps even from an orthodox punjabi islamic POV and edited history to adjust the way how he made sense (or rationalize) your image of what Pakistan is, and as always without any reliable source.
Furthermore, going forward I would like for you not you mention me on your talk page, as as you are not addressing allegations about your behaviour that has resulted you in a permanent indefinite block; . Although, I am not extremely knowledgeable when it comes to WP:Sock your consistently yet grossly disruptive behaviour with most editors would alone have, as User:Sitush also mentioned warranted a block. I would encourage you to focus on your behaviour pertaining to this matter alone without sidestepping the question. Good bye. --lilpiglet 04:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


Per lilpiglet. And It's recommended that you should take advantage of the WP:STANDARDOFFER, after 6 months or 1 year. You can request unban, it should be evident that you wouldn't repeat this mistake, you can request either here or through the Ban Appeals Subcomittee. There are many other wikipedias, such as [2], wikicommons, etc, where you can contribute. OccultZone (Talk) 07:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to answer Lilpiglet in detail since language in her post was insulting towards me as it has been in numerous other interactions with her, she is accusing me again of the same thing that she has been involved herself relying to unsourced content and trying to rely on her own understandings. All i asked on those pages were that she provide sources. Wikipedia is not about my knowledge or her knowledge about different topics which i have learned from little experience i had on Wikipedia and that is what i was trying to enforce that she provide sources before she wants to include her version of content otherwise leave it removed and i see on numerous pages she has come up with sources while i was blocked and i appreciate that. I would have appreciated her the same way if she would have come up with sources when i was objecting to the content. Although i still see that a lot of content she restored is still unsourced and needs to looked into by someone. I can go on to answer all her allegations but there is no point. I still believe i have been pretty nice to her in all those interactions but cannot do anything to change her point of view. Even if i went to ANI, i asked for a fair decision and did not ask anything in my favor. I am also not sure where from she is quoting me where i used words "confrontational" for myself. Why someone would use such words for their own behavior?
I am going to take OccultZone's advice and take a break for sometime and see if i ever need to come back to Wikipedia, then i will follow the due process. I came here by an accident when i really needed to change something and i had free time as well but lately Wikipedia has been taking a lot of my time from other useful activities.
Regardless of this, i will welcome the decision of any future administrator to unblock me in the future. It would be nice to contribute occasionally. I have activated email interactions on my account so if someone ever decide to unblock me, just drop me an email since i won't be logging in to this account anymore. Apart from all the differences and disputes we had, i would like to thank all of you especially the people i had disputes with including Sitush, Smsarmad, JNW and Lilpiglet. I am also thankful to Yunshui and Daniel Case for reviewing my unblock appeal. Bye Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to recent mentions[edit]

Hi User:Sitush, i will like to request you to stop mentioning me on Wikipedia especially in derogatory terms like you did here. I have been very nice with you even though i was blocked partially because of your efforts, i even thanked you while accepting the ban no matter how unfair i believe it was.

You are saying that those votes are from a sockpuppet but no where you can pinpoint a vote from my accused sockpuppets. This is a proof in itself that those accounts were not mine otherwise i would have used them to influence those votes. My keep votes there were totally based on reliable sources which you consider to be not as reliable. It totally comes down to opinion vs. opinion. In your opinion, they are not reliable, in my opinion they are. Whose opinion wins? The one who has more votes and there were clearly more "keep" votes for AFDs which DGG and User:Rich Farmbrough also objected to. They were poorly decided to be deleted.

Moreover, if was to sockpuppet, i can still do so, there is no stopping me from creating another account or making IP edits but i have accepted the ban and decided not to create an account or do IP edits while i am seeing all sort of crap being added to the pages in my watchlist and no one is questioning that or even looking on those pages. If i was there, that crap would not have stayed there. I would have organized those pages in the past week when i was blocked but i am happy to see that there are sensible people like DGG and User:Rich Farmbrough who are reviewing deletions that happened mostly out of personal prejudice against some newcomers who did not accept authority of Sitush and a few others and in return the pages they created were taken to AFD and those newcomers being banned citing one policy or the other.

I also appreciate Justice007 keeping a check on rogue editor's edits based on her extreme personal viewpoints about topics related to Pakistan but there are many which still went unchecked.

It's totally unfair to keep mentioning someone in derogatory terms while knowing all that time that that person cannot respond to you. There were few occasions before. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)