User talk:Faraz Sualeh

Welcome!

Hello, Faraz Sualeh, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Anjuman-I-Islam's Kalsekar Technical Campus, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 2A00:23EE:1478:6AAC:D41C:52FF:FE2C:4707 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"for no reason"

Please don't post false edit summaries. You know why I removed the content you added: it was per WP:V and WP:OR. Why are you adding information to Wikipedia without a source? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i already mentioned the sources, you can search yourself about George Habash's Visit to Sahrawi Refugee Camps the speech is also available in video which you'll get if you simply search 'George Habash on Western Sahara'. Do research before removing whether there is a source or not! Faraz Sualeh (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question and you didn't add sources before I reverted. Please do not add unsourced information as it's not my job to prove or disprove your claims. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that free to add an information that has nothing do with the topic! I got the info, then did research and edited on Wikipedia with references! Faraz Sualeh (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Faraz Sualeh (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Martyr. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I'm referring to this edit summary. Favonian (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that editor is constantly reverting my edits and spreading Propaganda and I'm really not interested in doing edit wars but still i had to do... Faraz Sualeh (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Faraz Sualeh! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. SilverLocust 💬 03:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the other editor is not willing to talk nor does he pay heed to refrences all what he cares is about his POV! Faraz Sualeh (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit Lions' Gate stabbings or other pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict or your account may be blocked from editing. As you were informed above on August 14, there is a prohibition against editing a "page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict" unless you "have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days". (Your account has 144 edits.) This topic includes the article Lions' Gate stabbings, which shows a warning about this when editing the page. Even if your account met the requirements to edit that page, you have also violated the prohibition (also explained above) against reverting on the page more than one time in 24 hours. SilverLocust 💬 19:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am adding Info with reliable sources if other editors can't digest the fact that's not my problem! I tried to talk with that spammer Gary so called 'editor' as well but he is not replying coz he don't have any proofs and is only pushing his own POV and btw i thought

And 500 edits are required on those pages which had locked the editing option for ne,isn't it?ies! Faraz Sualeh (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The general sanctions apply to any page within the topic. It is not limited to those where an administrator has currently edited the page's protection status. See WP:ARBPIA4:

Definition of the "area of conflict"
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

SilverLocust 💬 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what to do if the other editor is not willing to talk and pushing his own POV and Propaganda? Faraz Sualeh (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can request edits at the talk page, but please do so with civility. I have also told the other user about the contentious topic restriction. SilverLocust 💬 20:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay👍 Faraz Sualeh (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Faraz Sualeh! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info will remember it for future edits✨🙌 Faraz Sualeh (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Faraz Sualeh! Your additions to India–Jordan relations have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

understood will surely keep in mind next time👍 Faraz Sualeh (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You are currently prohibited from editing about the following topics:

The Russo-Ukrainian war (WP:GS/RUSUKR);

This is because you are not extended-confirmed on the encyclopedia. Carter00000 (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

You have continued to mark edits as minor that are not minor edits. Examples include these edits: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. As I mentioned before, "minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. You may be blocked from editing if you continue to do this. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um ok Faraz Sualeh (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Do not edit 2023 or other pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict or your account may be blocked from editing. As you were informed above on August 14, there is a prohibition against editing a "page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict" unless you "have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days". Carter00000 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lmao Faraz Sualeh (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User:Gary Chyabne, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

haha ok👀 Faraz Sualeh (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's another personal attack. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad🤦🏻‍♂️

C'mon man I'm sorry for that won't do again...🫠✌️ Faraz Sualeh (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well if one edit overshadows my 300 good faith edits then be it like this... Keep spreading your Propaganda on Wikipedia🥰 Faraz Sualeh (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #78391

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any unblock discussion should take into consideration this edit -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i already said won't do again and that was before i submitted an appeal since I thought that block means "it's over, that's it" and that made me frustrated but after further reading on 'guide to appealing blocks' i got those points... 🫠 Faraz Sualeh (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I deeply regret my previous edits that resulted in vandalism on Wikipedia. I want to emphasize that my intention has always been to contribute positively and in good faith to the Wikipedia community. I sincerely apologize for my past actions, and I am committed to adhering strictly to Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies moving forward. If unblocked, I promise to make only constructive edits and ensure that my contributions benefit the community. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

Clearly false. You were deliberately vandalising Wikipedia, so it's certainly not the case that your intention was always "to contribute positively and in good faith to the Wikipedia community". Yamla (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2023 (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.

Reply to Yamla (talk) = I know I've deliberately did some edits that came in WP:VAND category but I've also done good faith edits one of my best edited example is creation of the page: Ethiopia-Saudi Arabia relations ; i promise to not do those type of vandalising edits if unblocked and my main purpose on Wikipedia will be solely to do good faith edits, if did anything wrong again warn me a couple of times since I'm new like when I started I used to add 'minor' edits to any random edit which I used to feel it's minor but after getting warning i refrained from doing that, honestly speaking I'll try my best to do the best on Wikipedia! Thanks for consideration, Ma As Salama.

Unblock Request 2.0

I don't know how much time I can do such unblock requests so would be better if someone who is reviewing tells me about that too...

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).

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

Request reason:

I acknowledge that I have made edits categorized as vandalism in the past, which I deeply regret. I also recognize the importance of contributing constructively to Wikipedia. And My intention is from now onwards 100% on making good faith edits that adhere to Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies. I have learned from my previous actions and am committed to positively contributing to the Wikipedia community. If unblocked, I promise to uphold the standards of Wikipedia and ensure my edits are beneficial to the platform. All I need is a chance and I'll make sure not do those type of vandalising edits again. Thank you for your consideration. Faraz Sualeh (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to tell us what edits you intend to make. I would oppose unblocking you to edit in the Contentious Topic areas you have already been warned about on this page(Arab-Israeli conflict and Eastern Europe), but others may feel differently. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2023 (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.

Reply to Unblock denial

@331dot i wanna edit on bilateral relations between countries, I've previously been involved in that as well for example this page 'Ethiopia-Saudi Arabia relations' is created by me after hours of research and I will stay away from doing edits like Arab-Israeli conflict.... You can keep an eye on my edits as well...👀✌️ Faraz Sualeh (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot will I have to give the above reason in unblock template or that normal comment is fine? Faraz Sualeh (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks🙂 Faraz Sualeh (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how much time on an average does it take for administrators to review the block? My first 2 appeals were declined in just few hours but third one has got no response...that's why I'm asking? Faraz Sualeh (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Ethiopia–Saudi Arabia relations

Hello, Faraz Sualeh,

Thank you for creating Ethiopia–Saudi Arabia relations.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Material in this article appears to have been copied directly from the Washington Post and Human Rights Watch.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Goldsztajn}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Goldsztajn (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i can't do any changes in that page since I'm blocked and no one is addressing my block request, if you think it's copied from somewhere you may change it a bit... Faraz Sualeh (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I humbly acknowledge that I have previously made edits categorized as vandalism, which I deeply regret. I have come to realize the vital importance of contributing constructively to Wikipedia and the significance of maintaining its high standards. I have learned from my past actions and genuinely intend to be a positive contributor to the Wikipedia community. If unblocked, I wholeheartedly promise to uphold Wikipedia's content guidelines and adhere to its policies. I am eager to continue working on articles related to bilateral relations between countries and few others which are not controversial or biased, and I pledge to abstain from edits related to sensitive topics like the Arab-Israeli conflict. I welcome close monitoring of my edits to demonstrate my commitment to constructive contributions. You can also check my contributions at Simple English Wikipedia(search the same username). which I have been doing for past 2-3 months and can be considered positive(i hope). So, I kindly request the opportunity to resume contributing to Wikipedia and contribute positively to the platform. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2023 (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.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I humbly acknowledge again as I did in my previous unblock request (which no admin pay heed to for a long time and then it was declined) that I have previously made edits categorized as WP:vandalism, which I regret now. I have committed to contributing constructively on Wikipedia. I have learned from my past actions and genuinely out of my heart intend to be a positive contributor to the Wikipedia community. If unblocked, I wholeheartedly promise to uphold Wikipedia's content guidelines and adhere to its policies. I am eager to continue working on articles that are not related to sensitive topics like the Arab-Israeli conflict. I welcome close monitoring of my edits to demonstrate my commitment to constructive contributions. You can also check my contributions at Simple English Wikipedia (search the same username). which I have been doing for past 3 months and can be considered positive. So, I kindly request the opportunity to resume contributing to Wikipedia and contribute positively to the platform. My thanks to anyone who considers this request, Ma As Salama.

Decline reason:

{Sorry, I cannot unblock you at this time. The wording, "characterized as vandalism," shows you don't know what is and is not vandalism. Please describe what constructive edits you would make. We don't have time to monitor your every edit. Either you are now able to edit constructively or you are not. I think the latter.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:06, 6 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.