User talk:AKJatt

AKJatt, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AKJatt! 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 Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Spartacus! (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Spartacus! ^t@lk 05:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spartacus For your information, iNstead of being blunt and blindly deleting my additions, you are advised to read my additions carefully as it includes all the internal and external sources. Thanks AKJatt (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Inter-Services Intelligence. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Inter-Services Intelligence.

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, you may be blocked from editing. Spartacus! ^t@lk 08:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AKJatt reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Jayron 32 12:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly edit-warring at Inter-Services Intelligence. If you indicate that you will stop editing the text of the article until after consensus is reached in discussion at Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence, you may be unblocked early. Regardless, the proper way forward when there is a disagreement over added text is to leave the text out and establish consensus at the article talk page. I am making no statement of evaluation over the quality of your contribution; merely noting that the behavior of repeatedly adding the same disputed text is disruptive behavior and should not happen. The proper way to resolve any dispute is to talk it out on talk pages, and if needed, to use dispute resolution processes. You don't "win" because a) you're more willing to repeatedly add the same text over and over and b) this isn't a competition with winners and losers anyways. The best thing to do is to work out what the text should say on the talk page, and convince others through the use of reason and reliable sources that you have a good idea. --Jayron 32 12:36, 5 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

There were 03 people who were not letting me add text. i was being polite at first and asked them a reason which they failed to provide satisfactorily. I thought Wikipedia is a Proper way to add information but there are some blockers who don't allow you to add info. there are many biases AKJatt (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this provides justification to engage in edit-warring. Yamla (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2016 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Horwath Hussain Chaudhury & Company

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Horwath Hussain Chaudhury & Company, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of crowehorwath.net/PK/about/About.aspx. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]