User talk:USaamo

Welcome!

Hello, Saamikhan01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jibran1998 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! 😊 UsamaAhmadKhan 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Hello, I'm Jibran1998. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to NA-13 (Mansehra-I) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Jibran1998 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

How were they not constructive? I made correction to their names. Secondly I removed PPP candidate, Ahmed Hussain Shah's name as he is not contesting from NA-13 but from PK-30. How did you not find these edits constructive??? UsamaAhmadKhan 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You did not provide references, with each edit (except grammatical ones) you need to provide a reference otherwise they will be reverted even if the information is true Jibran1998 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Saamikhan01: I realized that you were right about PPPP candidate which I removed now but there were other problems with your edit, check Shahjahan Yousuf, the article title is based on WP:COMMONNAME for this individual, so it is better to use common name elsewhere as well, Wikipedia do not recognize any Sardars. Secondly, you are moving up an independent candidate for no reason. Is he a relative or something? What is the reason? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well Mr. @SherrifIsInTown, I added Sardar to his name because if u see the page Shahjahan Yousuf, even there it is written so. Also everywhere in his area he's known as Sardar Shahjahan,similarly in his posters and in newspapers etc he's mentioned as Sardar Shahjahan Yousuf, so there's no reason that you find it unnecessary. I made another change to MMA's candidate name which you reverted was also right. His name is Baseer Awan not Baseer Khan. How did u find these unnecessary?? Lastly I changed order and placed independent candidate on 2nd according to the current political scenario of the area. Had he been my relative, I would have placed him on first, not second... (UsamaAhmadKhan 07:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC))

Your thread has been archived

Hi Saamikhan01! You created a thread called Edits are subjected to reversion most of the times. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting Wikipedia Signature

Hello Usama Ahmad Khan (assuming that it's your real life name) , greetings!

You have created or say registered as a Wikipedian by the username Saamikhan01 although you sign as UsamaAhmadKhan without linking to your userpage. If you are willing to publish the later name , please use aka. (which means also known as) after linking to your userpage .

As my sign,

Dr. Sroy(aka.ARKA) (talk)

— my original name is Arkaprabha

If you are having any problem, please feel free to ask me!

Anyway, happy editing, cheers! Dr. Sroy(aka.ARKA) (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do it but how abt changing username, is it possible? Usama Ahmad 05:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Saleh Muhammad Khan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib:, that was not a test edit, the info u provided there was incomplete and making no sense abt his education, that's why I removed it. Anyways fine, I'll add complete educational details of him later. (Usama Ahmad 07:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC))

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Saamikhan01, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Dr. Sroy(aka.ARKA) (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Username change

Regarding change in your username, file an request at this site.Fill out the form .

Thanks,Dr. Sroy(aka.ARKA) (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

ARBIPA

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.

Template:Z33 --DBigXrayᗙ 09:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, you may be blocked from editing. DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Utterly biased you people are... Why don't you apply this on Indian editors when they disrupt it and do disputed edits without consensus??? (Usama Ahmad 09:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC))

Wikipedia is based on reliable Third party and neutral sources see WP:RS. Only Pakistan Army says that it won the war. Even Pakistani Journalists and newspapers have published that Pakistan lost the 1965 war.

1965 War from Pakistani perspective

1. Not only did we (Pakistan) lose militarily in 1965 – state propaganda aside – but we also lost our national unity in the process.
2. Pakistan observing Defence Day and marking the 50th anniversary of the 1965 war, historian and political economist Dr S. Akbar Zaidi dispelled ‘the victory myth’, saying that there can be no a bigger lie, as Pakistan lost terribly.
3. Pakistan won the war in the same way that you finish third in a two-team tournament.
4. The Pakistani military has propagated a false narrative about the 1965 war that justifies its oversized role in society. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

References

December 2018

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Al-Qaeda, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

May 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: and what is consensus according to you, the point on which Indians agree... No things Don't go this way. I haven't violated any of Wikipedia rule. I've added an information which is necessary to be mention. The main article of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 also mentions India's upper hand according to the assessment of losses and so should be on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 as well. If you have any objection provide the reasonable ground or counter information or we can also go for a third opinion (WP:DRR/3O).

USaamo (t@lk) 14:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summaries in my reverts? If so, please tell me what would be right response to them. If not, please read them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did read them and what you are saying about the sources of Pakistan's edge over India in aerial war are obvious from both the neutral and Indian claims of losses which are well referenced in the article. -USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You should read WP:SYNTH. It says that you are not allowed to form your own conclusion from the sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: I duly understand synth, you need to read WP:NOTSYNTH where synth is defined as combining reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources. Since Pakistan's edge in aerial warfare is what most of the sources mentions or imply so this is not synth. You guys need to stop this edit warring and still if you are not satisfied, we can go for WP:DRR/3O. USaamo ^(t@lk) 18:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

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

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

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

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that nationalistic or racist comments like what you said here are strictly prohibited:

I just don't understand what is consensus according to you people, the thing on which Indian editors agree and what is a neutral source according to you people, the one which favours India's narrative as the only source in this discussion claimed to be neutral by you is the one which in a typical Indian analyst's tone questioning some points which itself needs verification while most of the Indian account in this article is from Indian military sites like bharat-rakshak.com, defenceindia.com and indiandefencereview.com which are not even noteworthy and then tribuneindia.com, zeenews.com, theprint.in and rediffnews.com whose credibility is also questionable being Indian sources.

Just because I am questioning the credibility of Pakistani claims, that doesn't give you license to brand all Indian sources. I am questioning them based on reliable sources (which are either third-party or Pakistan's own generals). If you have a problem with the sources I have used, you are welcome to raise them. But you cannot take it as a free for all.

If you do this kind of thing again, you will be looking at sanctions under ARBIPA. I encourage you to look at the famous WP:ARBIPA case and check what the arbitrators have said about such conduct. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

And just because I'm questioning your sources credibility or the credibility of Indian sources, it became a nationalistic attack, lol! USaamo ^(t@lk) 00:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Shaheen Raza, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That content removal from page was legit, source and content removed from the article had no clarity, it's just referring to Washington Post's homepage. Clarify the source or add better one which supports that claim of her age. The only source about her age in article is of Dawn and is credible upon which we can rely. Edit summary was given there thus your reversion amounts to WP:TWABUSE. Thanks! USaamo ^(t@lk) 19:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why edit war? What about this Reuters news story which says she was 65 and, this and this news story which says she was 69. --Saqib (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Shaheen Raza, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Stop adding unsourced information like birth place. Saqib (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay fine as to age since all three got mentioned but why you are reverting other changes. Her city Gujranwala is mentioned in almost of the news stories and her full name is mentioned in a couple of news stories through an embed tweet by President and is a well known thing. Understand good faith and stop status quo stonewalling. Thanks! USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Filed a report now against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

AE

I have filed a report against you about your conduct at WP:ARE where you can comment. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pashtunistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haripur (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) 06:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Urdudaan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Urdudaan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Urdudaan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

AE report

Hello USaamo. Please move your latest post to your own section. The place where you posted is reserved for admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I was busy in replying other statements filed but it's done anyhow. USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I just moved another round of statements to your section. Please only post in your section. The next time they have to be moved, they may be removed instead --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to where should I reply as I'm having a case there for first time and the subsequent statements coming in and page is changing rapidly. Anyhow got it now and will look for it onwards. Thanks! USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to put all your comments in the section titled "Statement by USaamo". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I was actually confused over 500 words thing, with more points getting added, statement is going beyond that limit but anyhow understood now! USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Will you make a concession that allows the AE complaint about you to be closed?

• Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At WP:AE I made an offer that the complaint about you (regarding the air war) could be closed *without* banning you from the topic. My idea was that you would make a concession about your future behavior. For example, you could offer to refrain from editing Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 or its talk page. You would also promise to stay away from all Wikipedia articles related to that war. In other words, some statement from you that guarantees that the war wouldn't continue in the future. So far all I see from you in return is this update to your views. If that is your final answer on this matter, I don't see any reason to be confident you won't continue. As I said at AE, USaamo is very determined that Pakistan should be recorded in the infobox as the winner of this air war. Unless there is some change, I perceive that your reverts will continue indefinitely. That would incline me to put a stop to the reverting by banning you from the topic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear admin my response to your offer was in second part of that diff that I agree to respect the process and will not change anything in the infobox without seeking consensus. I requested to be allowed this pursuit to resolve the dispute through dispute resolution process which obviously does involve talk and I believe is in no way against any policy as I'm assuring of not changing anything there without consensus. Even the edit I made to article last week was only after the discussion with editors in new section when no response came from them for a week and I notified this on talk as well. I had no intention of any edit warring with that edit which was not rightly perceived. Moreover in my response in that diff I requested the close of that RfC by the admin to be reconsidered since that is more than what was discussed as to the question. The socks comments made it flawed so it will make sense to reopen it as well and some more comments giving insight may be helpful to conclude it better. USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not persuaded by this answer. If this is the best you can do, I will proceed with the topic ban. In my comment just above I gave an example of a response that would be sufficient. You don't have to agree to that exactly, but you need to make clear that your behavior will be dramatically different in the future. I am unable to trust your judgment on consensus now that I have seen your peculiar impression of how the RfC turned out. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've said in clearest possible words about my behaviour that I will not try to push anything without consensus. Seeking dispute resolution as consensus building measure is no wrong thing to do and RfC too is not the final thing in dispute resolution process. I gave you my reason for not agreeing with how RfC turned out to be and I haven't read much policies but having an opinion about the result or dissatisfaction isn't a big deal unless one goes against it balatantly. I highlighted the flaws in RfC and it's close, some comments were done by sockpuppetry for which reopening demands makes sense and demand for admin to reconsider his close too is not wrong either considering that it was more than the question discussed. USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I earlier added a statement in my case[1] repeating my stance over the content dispute however I've a change of mind and reconsidered your offer above. Though I had already made my mind for letting go this dispute by getting banned as per the sanctions you proposed since it's been months and I also think I need a break but now I thought if it could be without having a ban mark in my log so it should be this way. I've given you assurances previously regarding respecting the process and staying away from editing that article but you asked for a do more so now I'm also assuring you that I agree with the other part about talk and dispute resolution as well and dropping the stick and and letting go this dispute. If this is the way this encyclopedia could be better so I respect it. I hope you will consider this in closing my case. Thanks! USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

To have a restriction that is completely clear, you would have to agree to make no more edits at either Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 or its talk page, or regarding any wars between India and Pakistan. This restriction would apply to those topics on any page anywhere on Wikipedia, including noticeboards. Let me know if this is acceptable. You would be able to appeal the restriction after six months of trouble-free editing in other areas. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I accept that but prefer no sanctions rather a probationary period. USaamo ^(t@lk) 18:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This proposal is for an indefinite sanction that keeps you from editing certain articles. The ban is indefinite but can be appealed in six months. This is not a form of probation. Granting the appeal in six months is not guaranteed; it depends on constructive editing over that period. Hope that is clear. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A day before you were recommending three months topic ban while I was insistent with my point and now an indefinite ban when you said of closing AE case without action on my assurance regarding behaviour which I gave you at the moment and then you asked further to refrain from whole topic which too I have accepted now. The only thing I've done during all this was my disagreement with the RfC for some reasons without any violation which as to your proposal I changed as well and assured to let it go so it would be better to go with that proposal you gave earlier. I didn't know that mere disagreement too can lead to here. USaamo ^(t@lk) 19:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Under my latest proposal you can still edit articles in WP:ARBIPA so long as you stay away from the India-Pakistan wars. Under the three-month option I offered originally you couldn't edit at all in ARBIPA. If you prefer that one, I'll go with it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought there was something regarding without action as well. Anyhow I already agreed to the latest proposal but why indefinite ban, why not the same three month ban in this case? USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the end of my discussion here. Let me know which you prefer, and it will be done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said I already agreed with the latest proposal but I still request the reconsideration of the time frame of sanctions proposed. USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite ban from the topic of wars between India and Pakistan. The ban applies to all pages in Wikipedia including articles, talk pages and noticeboards. The ban may be appealed after six months of trouble-free editing in other areas.

You have been sanctioned for edit warring, POV pushing and making aspersions against other editors per an AE discussion

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)