User talk:Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani

Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bishandot has been accepted

Bishandot, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Bishandot. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Person who formerly started with "216" (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that instead of fixing the problem, you simply removed the template without any other changes (Such as changing the article's tone, adding more information, et-cetera). I figure that should clear things up. If it was indeed a mistake, please remind me. Thanks! Person who formerly started with "216" (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad... it was indeed a mistake. Thanks for reminding me. Person who formerly started with "216" (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. PRehse (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bishandot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beautiful (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bishandot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bishandot 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/Bishandot 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. PRehse (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishandot

Note that all information on Wikipedia must be verifable. You absolutely must not restore information that has been removed as unsourced without providing a citation to a reliable source at the same time. SpinningSpark 16:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am working on source of that information and you will soon find it visible on article. Be Patient. Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the requirement is that you provide a source at the same time as restoring the information. To do otherwise is considered disruptive. SpinningSpark 20:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of articles

Regarding this edit, you need to understand that being the creator of an article on Wikipedia does not give you any special rights over it. Once posted, the article belongs to the whole community, please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. You cannot specify to other editors what they can, or cannot edit. You need to slow down and try and absorb some of the conventions and guidelines of this community before jumping off the deep end. The way you are going, you could easily end up blocked from editing altogether.

A couple of other minor things. Please sign your posts with four tildes, not by copy-pasting your signature as you did in that post. You were not logged in, so it looks like you were trying to forge a signature. Secondly, new posts go to the bottom of the page (or the bottom of the thread) and never interrupt someone else's post. In this particular case, you interfered the AfD nomination statement. You can reply to it (at the bottom) but do not change the nomination in any way. Also, you should not use sub-headings in AfD discussions. These discussions are transcluded into collected lists where the sub-headings are the titles of the individual AfDs. Sub-headings in the individual AfDs confuses these lists. SpinningSpark 11:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2018 (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).

Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not using double account or involved in sock puppetry. If you did this because of another user using my ip address named Papurat, He is my brother using same PC for his work. It is not me. Kindly unblock my account as I have none other than this account and also I will ask my brother to use another device for his work. You will not receive any complaints in future about it. If you unblock my account, it will be a great favour for me.Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Your brother's account" was clearly created for the sole purpose of supporting you in a deletion discussion. That's not permitted. Huon (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2018 (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.

Mohra Nijar moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mohra Nijar, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) 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. Britishfinance (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mohra Nijar

Hello, Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mohra Nijar".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Interstellarity (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2019 (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).

Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am writing to request the unblocking of my Wikipedia userpage, which was blocked by an administrator following a disagreement. I acknowledge the past dispute and understand the importance of maintaining a collaborative and respectful environment on Wikipedia. Moving forward, I am committed to engaging in constructive discussions and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I believe unblocking my userpage will allow me to contribute positively to the community. Thank you for considering my request.

Decline reason:

This does not address your abuse of multiple accounts. Yamla (talk) 10:34, 24 January 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.

You need to make absolutely sure you are not using ChatGPT or other AI chatbots to write your unblock request. Doing so would clearly demonstrate you lack sufficient competence to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 10:35, 24 January 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).

Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Few years ago, I was blocked due to a disagreement with an administrator who tried to delete a page i created and he submitted it for deletion and not knowing the rule that you can not make multiple accounts, I told my brother to make another account and make vote for no deletion. And that administrator blocked me for this. Although the page deletion result was in my favour but I lost my account. 5 years have been passed since that incident. I want to contribute to wikipedia and assure to follow all the guidelines in doing so. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Blaming others for your sock puppetry is wrong. Your excuse does not hold up for the other sock puppets you created, even if it were valid. I have little doubt you would again create sock puppets if you were in another dispute or thought you could justify doing so to yourself. Speaking of which, please become familiar with WP:dispute resolution Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:38, 24 January 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.

This is absurd. You are saying you were blocked for disagreeing with an admin. You were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it does not address your use of multiple sock puppets. Please list any and all accounts you and/or your brother have used in the last six months. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All those sock puppets, and the article would have been kept without them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been five years since I last used Wikipedia. There are no accounts I created or used in last 6 months for any sort of editing. And yeah I was blocked because of the disagreement with administrator named SpinningSpark which lead to the creation of other accounts called sockpuppets because I was not aware of the rules at that time and I did it because he wrongly set the page I created for deletion. And I was right in that deletion scenario because after the review, the decision was in my favour. But in the process not knowing the rules, I have violated some rules which I admit that was wrong but now five years have passed and I think that is enough exile. I want to contribute to wikipedia and assure not to violate any rules.

Thanks!@Deepfriedokra Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exile or punishment. You are blocked to prevent further disruption. You have given no indication that you would edit constructively if unblocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What else was I saying? I would contribute to it means I would edit constructively if unblocked. @Deepfriedokra Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Seen your talk page and you are friend with the same user @Bbb23 who blocked me. What a monopoly you have been playing here @Deepfriedokra Well played. Where's independence in this unblock review? You clearly would not have unblocked me and always would have found some absurd reason for not blocking me. What a cult you are. Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]