User talk:Renamed user 864c542a23313621

This is Renamed user 864c542a23313621's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Reply/Comment

Tokyogirl79, first you blocked me without a solid reason and you're calling me WP:Duck. This is so rude. Please stop this. I can't believe I'm blocked indefinitely. Yes, I was blocked in September 2015 but please see the discussion why I was blocked and did I really engaged an edit war. You're using your rights in a wrong way. Please unblock me until the investigation is over. And if it is proved that I used multiple accounts, I shall be blocked for ever. I always tried to make constructive edits and I also received a barnstar for it. And now you're calling me a Sockpuppet. Isn't that rude? Why would you act like that?--Musa Talk 07:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. These are far too many coincidences and this is within my rights as an admin to block someone that I believe is evading a prior block. You can answer questions on your talk page, but until you're cleared through SPI, you're going to remain blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: So you block straightaway If two users have same name and they edit same page? You're going against the policies. And I can't even make a comment on the investigation page. This is absolutely unfair. You can block me until the investigation is over but you're not. And how do you know that user? You just saw the name is similar to me and you blocked me. Wow! I'm surprised.--Musa Talk 07:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the situation, but if there's a case where there are two users with a nearly identical name that have edited on identical topics (and even on the same pages) and especially if one of the accounts have been blocked as a sockpuppet of another account, then yes - it is within my rights as an admin to block that user. There doesn't have to be an SPI, but I like to open them for procedural reasons so there's a record of the other accounts. To put it bluntly, I'm well within my rights to block you given the strong similarities between these accounts.

Something that you do need to be aware of: if you are Mnaqvii evading a block then saying that you aren't doesn't look reflect particularly well on you. It's up to another admin to decline the block or unblock you, however I would recommend that they not given that I believe that you are Mnaqvii and that there's enough evidence here to prove that. Now if you are Mnaqvii (again, I believe that you are) then you need to seek an unblock under your main account and right now, this is probably one of the worst things you can do as far as seeking an unblock goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling me Mnaqvi. You're comparing me with the user who has made 127 edits like this [1]. The number of articles I have created is greater than the edits he has made. Tokyogirl79 Do you have any solid reason except the name? It's true that I have edited the same article as that user but his edits are unconstructive and I have always made constructive edits. Why don't you see this? I have seen his contributions he has mostly edited talk pages unconstructively. There is a huge difference b/w the contributions. Editing a same article is not an evidence. The evidence is that the contributions are same. Please don't say that I'm using multiple accounts. I have just a single account from which I'm blocked indefinitely without any prove. I'm not wrong at all. You're misusing the administrator rights.--Musa Talk 07:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's the name, plus the name of the alternate accounts and the edits they've made. The whole principle of WP:DUCK in this situation is that if you have an account that has a nearly identical username, has tried to create articles on the same subject, and has made edits in the same topic area (and in some cases even on the same articles), and one of the accounts was made around the same time that an unblock request was denied, then it's extremely unlikely that the accounts are separate people entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Name and edits. You can't block me just because of these poor evidences in fact it's a guess. I have made more than 6,900 edits and that user have just made 127. And I have edited Pakistan related articles cuz I'm participant of Wikiproject Pakistan. That user have made edits mostly on rappers and I have made just a few edits on those rapper's pages. You can't compare me with him like this. You're acting against the policies. You can't block me with the guesses. And you can unblock me now but you're not. Your behaviour is so rude. I'm using one account and I don't know that user. That's the truth but you'll never believe it.--Musa Talk 11:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: I request you to unblock me until the investigation is running. I'm asking you politely to unblock me.--Musa Talk 12:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI has already closed as another admin, Bbb23, found the evidence enough to warrant closing it early. There was more than enough evidence to suggest that you're Mnaqvii evading a block and if you were two separate people it'd be one heck of a coincidence, given that you edit on identical topics (both general and specific) and your username is identical to one of the other sockpuppets. The problem here is that the evidence overwhelmingly points towards this being a sockpuppet account, yet you're denying it.

Now it could have been that you were trying for a legitimate fresh start, however the thing about fresh starts is that there needs to be some agreement on the original account that it's OK for you to open an account under a new name. There was no such agreement and it was actually pointed out that you shouldn't do this. The other thing with fresh start accounts is that if someone asks if you were a prior user (especially if the other account was blocked for issues like sockpuppetry) you need to be honest about this. If you'd been honest about it then the conversation would have then moved to the original account and there was a chance that you could've been unblocked immediately, albeit a relatively slim one. By doing this we have to question your reasons for being here and whether or not you can follow overall policies, given that you were willing to disregard the sockpuppetry guidelines. That you also have issues with other guidelines like notability, sourcing, and edit warring brings up some serious concerns as well.

I'm going to cut off talk page access now, since it seems unlikely that this is going to go anywhere. If another admin wants to unblock you then that's on them, but I'd strongly advise against it given that the evidence here strongly, strongly points towards this being a sockpuppet account and was strong enough to where an SPI closed after only a few hours of being open - something that wouldn't happen if the evidence was as weak as Musa is claiming. If you do choose to unblock, I'd recommend that this unblock occur on the main account rather than this one, however. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify a few things. I did not close the SPI because I reviewed the evidence. An administrator may block an account because they are persuaded that the account is a sock puppet. They don't need to take it to SPI, even if there is an existing case. I closed the SPI because based on Tokyogirl79's comments, it was unnecessary to even file the case except to note it for the record. Nor do I think a second opinion was required based on the comments by the user here. Absolute proof of socking is not the standard for blocking a suspected sock, and the user's comment about "guesses" is equally misguided. Tokyogirl, whose track record in identifying socking is excellent, set forth more than enough evidence to block the account, which is roughly a more-probable-than-not standard, although the exact line is not easy to draw. FWIW, I would also have revoked Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry about that - I thought you'd looked over their edits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my note below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Uski Suno Awaz.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Uski Suno Awaz.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bankster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bankster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #15961 was submitted on Jun 14, 2016 09:56:29. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to unblocking admins

I only recently checked my e-mail, as I tend to ignore it unless I get a message specifically asking me to check it.

Since I revoked talk page access this user has sent me two e-mails asking for me to unblock them. They were specifically and repeatedly told that they should check back in six months and that after that point in time they should give a good explanation about their sockpuppetry and editing habits. The first was sent a day after talk page access was revoked, the second was sent on June 2.

In the first email they claimed that they didn't understand why they were blocked - despite several attempts by myself and others to explain why. (Sockpuppetry, problems with editing, etc.) When this email didn't end with his desired result he sent me a second email that was nastier in tone. They called me an outright liar several times and tried to make the same arguments that they did here, only slightly more forceful. It wasn't the nastiest email I've ever received by a long shot, but I consider repeated accusations of lying to be nasty.

Throughout both emails (and this talk page) there was a very common reoccuring theme about them being a wronged party, that they were a great editor, and that they should be unblocked right away. They had to be continually prodded and led into admitting any wrongdoing and the emails have shown that without this prodding they reverted back to the idea that they have done nothing wrong. That they also chose to insult me by repeatedly calling me a liar is just sort of icing on the "should never be unblocked" cake.

I recommend against unblocking this user, as there's a continued refusal to understand the reasons for their block - and there were many. The way that they continually tried to shift the blame on to other people or to various excuses just gives off the impression that any unblocking will lead to more issues and a reblock. They seem to be deliberately refusing to understand what they did wrong or why it would violate guidelines - and when they don't get what they want, they start using insulting language. If they're not able to understand guidelines and they aren't even willing to wait six months before launching a new "unblock me" campaign, then I don't think that we can trust them with editing Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following message is one I posted on this user's main account, Mnaqvii. I figured it would just be easier to repost this than to re-write it entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding this from the userpage for Musa Rasa, since this is the original account and I want to make sure that any unblocking admin sees this. This user has sent me another e-mail. This one was slightly nicer in tone but still contained some semi-veiled insults towards me, such as accusing me of "bashing" him on his talk page and requesting a page restoration and writing "But I'm pretty sure you'll never do it." It's not the same as being called a liar at least twice in one email but it's still a clear show of him assuming bad faith on my part, even after several other editors came on to my page and said the exact same things I did.

Like I posted on the other page and reposted here, I do not recommend unblocking him in six months time. Despite repeated attempts to get him to show an understanding of the reasons for his block and to admit wrongdoing, he seems to very quickly revert to the idea that he essentially did nothing wrong without someone prodding him. For me, this shows that he was only saying what he thought we wanted to here and I doubt very seriously that this mindset will change in six months time. That he contacted me via e-mail after he had his talk page revoked (and was sent a very, very clear message that six months was set in stone as a minimum) shows a fairly clear disregard for the rules.

I think that if he was unblocked it'd only end in an eventual (or maybe even an immediate) reblock since his emails show that he doesn't and won't understand the reasons for his block. We shouldn't have to ride someone this much to get them to understand something and the user especially shouldn't immediately revert to his prior way of thinking when that supervision is removed. I think that the only way he'd be able to responsibly edit is if someone constantly monitored him and I don't think that this level of supervision is really possible given how quickly he reverted back since this seems to be a deliberate disregard for the rules laboriously laid out for him by several editors. If anyone wanted to unblock him that's on them, but I heavily recommend against any unblock. I just don't think that he's willing or able to follow guidelines, if he reverted on the very basics this quickly and still continues to insult me (albeit in a lesser format, but it's still there) in a follow up email.

He did ask me to remove the archival tag on his other page, so I will do that. As far as the film Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hai goes, I won't be able to do that without good sourcing and I'm a bit loathe to do that for him since I don't want him to think that he can edit via other editors - that's still considered by many to be a block evasion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is still emailing me despite what I'd say would have to be clear indication here that these communications are unwanted. To Musa Raza: any e-mail you send via here - especially since it deals with your block - is fair game to be mentioned here. Sending me something via an email does not mean that it ends here. I have not posted the entirety of the emails here (just quotes), but I will if anyone asks. They've also continued with requests that I restore a page for them. I did so once in the past and this ended up being a decidedly bad move. They also seem to think that their unblock is an absolute guarantee per the statement "I have mentioned in the previous email that I will join Wikipedia back in November." I'd say that he is misunderstanding the situation here, but I think that the past discussions have made it quite clear that the standard offer means that he can request an unblock in 6-12 months time. It's not a guarantee and I think that I've made my thoughts on his future unblock request quite clear. I whole heartedly oppose an unblock for the reasons stated above. He's shown here and in his emails (a truly new and ignorant user wouldn't know half of the stuff he does) that he is aware of the rules - he just deliberately chooses to ignore them and tries to use the excuse that he's unaware to evade the consequences for his actions, which eventually backfired on him pretty hard. Given his repeated instances of ignoring the rules in favor of his own actions, I don't think that he can ever be trusted to edit responsibly and honestly. I mean, all of this talk page content and his emails still show that he doesn't fully understand what he did wrong.

I'm going to revoke his right to send email since I don't want to have to update this with a block message each time he emails me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack: I want to apologise for these inappropriate comments I made. This is not just against Wikipedia’s policies but an immoral act. Please accept my apologies. Sorry.-Musa Raza (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Chapter One- The Prince Who Would Be King.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chapter One- The Prince Who Would Be King.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Khaemae Mein Matt Jhankain.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Khaemae Mein Matt Jhankain.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lazarus Story.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lazarus Story.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TMLS.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TMLS.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Udaari poster.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Udaari poster.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sham Idrees

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 Sham Idrees requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GSS (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PTV Global (2016).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PTV Global (2016).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PTV Home.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PTV Home.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sham Idrees for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sham Idrees 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/Sham Idrees until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. GSS (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:3 Bahadur part 2 poster.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:3 Bahadur part 2 poster.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asia challenge

The Asian
10,000 Challenge
Improve/create any article on anywhere in Asia whenever you feel like it and list it!...

0.23%

Hello. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the participants.

Thanks,
~~~~

Saadkhan12345 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Musa Raza. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17018 was submitted on Nov 30, 2016 20:25:54. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock review: User:Musa Raza regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you. Just Chilling (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling: Please ask Tokyogirl79 to join the discussion as the user blocked me and I had many issues with them that I have also mentioned in the request. Thank you.--Musa Talk 09:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already invited. Just Chilling (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17363 was submitted on Jan 21, 2017 12:23:32. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sanam Teri Kasam 2016.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sanam Teri Kasam 2016.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sachin poster.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sachin poster.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conan the Conqueror (upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conan the Conqueror (upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the Conan the Conqueror (upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Patari album

Template:Patari album has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jawani Phir Nahi Ani 2

Hello, Musa Raza. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jawani Phir Nahi Ani 2".

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. Hasteur (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Conan the Conqueror has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Conan the Conqueror. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Conan the Conqueror

Hello, Musa Raza. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Conan the Conqueror".

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. Legacypac (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2017 (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).

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to get back on Wikipedia and edit again. Plzz unblock me now. I'm posting this unblock request after 7 months. I did not edit Wikipedia in this time. I have completed Standard offer. I admit all the mistakes I made and now I want to start over. This is my main account unblock me from here and delete all others and add their talk page data to this account's talk page. @Tokyogirl79: blocked me for using multiple accounts and refusing to accept it. I am blocked for over 1 year now. I posted an unblock request before but it was rejected as admins were not agreed so now I'm back after 7 months of my last request to start over.

Decline reason:

The standard offer is not a guarantee. Given the highly problematic nature of your edits, merely "doing your time" is not enough to give us confidence that those problems won't recur when you are unblocked. Huon (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2017 (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 have not meaningfully addressed the reasons for your block. We need to be sure you understand why your previous behaviour was inappropriate so we can be convinced unblocking you would be the right thing to do. --Yamla (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC) @Yamla: Added the reasons.-- 01:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: My request was simply declined without any discussion? I was told by @Tokyogirl79: that I can only get back if I complete standard offer and follow other guidelines (see this) and now I fulfill all these requirements. So I have the right to ask for unblock. I did what I was told and now I'm here to start over but my request was not even discussed. Please start a discussion on admins noticeboard like before. In my previous request 7 months ago I was told to wait for another 6 months so now i'm here after almost 8 months please don't just decline my request at least talk to blocking admins. I'm blocked for over a year now and I didn't create new account to edit. @Tokyogirl79: please take a look.--Musa Raza (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not violating Wikipedia's policies by creating new accounts to circumvent your block. Firstly, you should request an unblock from your original account, not from a sockpuppet account. Secondly, there's this. You will need to do more than just not evading your block to convince us that unblocking you is a good idea. Huon (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: I don't remember password of that account and I do not have access to its email either. I have used this account the most and this is actually my main account. Now I have not only refrained from evading my block but also did the other things I was told. I have admitted everything wrong I did (I accept that I used multiple accounts, evaded blocks, denied it, blamed it on admin, did disruptive editing and more) and I want to start over. I was told u have a chance to get back only if you do what you're told I did it. I posted a request 7 months ago, a discussion began at admins noticeboard but request was rejected. Now again I was told to wait and I waited patiently and here I am again. Now my request is not even being discussed. But I waited for so long, I don't know what to do now. My previous request was rejected on the decision of many admins and this one is only judged by one. Do you think it's just?. I don't want you to unblock me right now, I'm only requesting you to take this block to admins noticeboard. I'll accept whatever they say. At least you can accept this.--Musa Raza (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC) @Just Chilling: Please take a look as you posted my previous request to admins noticeboard.--Musa Raza (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the other talk page. Ultimately I don't think that he should be unblocked. He's admitted what he did wrong, but this really comes across as him telling us what he thinks we want to hear. He still has a confrontational attitude towards others, leading me to think that if he was unblocked he will almost certainly be reblocked for similar behaviors. Before I had a slight belief that he may be unblockable, but this request has wiped that out. He just doesn't seem to really understand guidelines or really want to. If others agree, I think that it would be better to just block access to this talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I do not have access to my first account so I'm writing here. First of all thank you for responding Tokyogirl79 and secondly I apologise for my attitude to you and Huon. I wrote like this because I felt a bit disappointed about my request getting rejected, I was convinced that I will be given a chance at admins noticeboard. But it's totally okay I'm not going to keep asking you. So, I was talking about the things I did wrong only because I want fix them. I want to start over again without doing the wrong things I did before. I read the complete guidelines and policies of Wikipedia especially which I ignored. For example I will be careful creating a new article, using sources, adding/removing content, moving pages and uploading images etc, as I did not read the policies completely before. Now I'm not the person I was in the back and I won't be editing so much like before. I request for unblock to start edit like a new user who has read the guidelines and policies for editing. My goal will be to become an admin. It seems funny it is funny but I will no matter how many years it takes. Whenever I'm unblocked you'll see that there's actually a big change. And, I asked you to edit behalf of me because I did not like that the articles I wrote were deleted as I was blocked so I wanted them to be undeleted. It was when I was newly blocked, years back. But I'm not concerned like that anymore, once I'm unblocked I will myself request deletion of my articles that do not meet the criteria and I won't ask for undeletion of any deleted articles. Years back I was always online here but now I do not have enough time to be always online. I can promise that you won't regret unblocking me. Right now I'm not going to keep asking you to just unblock me. I understand and I'm ready to wait more. Again I say that I never thought my request will be declined without reaching ANI so I was being a bit unfriendly and I apologise for it. Now I request you to please reply to this message and if you could tell me how much longer should I wait before I could think about posting an unblock request. Thank you.--Musa Raza (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79 and Anthony Bradbury: These are the articles I've ever created (in block evasion). Delete them, recreate them or keep them. I'm looking forward to a fresh and clean start so I don't care anymore. Now it's almost 2 years since i'm blocked.--Musa Raza (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Valley.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Valley.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ashir Azeem for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashir Azeem 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/Ashir Azeem until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Störm (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:See TV.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:See TV.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Another 6 months gone. Can I post an unblock request now and have a chance of being unblocked?--Musa Raza (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But remember, WP:SO isn't a guarantee. You still need to meaningfully address the reasons for your block. --Yamla (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks.--Musa Raza (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 1

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).

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Requesting unblock after more than 6 months of my previous (void) request. I will accept the judgement without arguing. WP:SO is done and I know it is not the only requirement. I was blocked in 2016 for abusing multiple accounts. It was just and fair block as I knew I was wrong. I tried hard to get back by arguing with admins. Now I believe my attitude was totally unacceptable and I understand my requests were rejected justly. It's my own fault that I am still not allowed here. I'm requesting an unblock again but this time I am not defending myself. I have realized my behavior was unfitting and disagreeable. I have nothing more to do with what I have said or did in the past. Just looking forward to contribute and expand this site cleanly without breaking any rules or showing any kind of inappropriate behavior like past. --Musa Raza (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Edit: I additionally request the adminis to delete the articles and pages that I created (xtools sigma) while invading block. The reason for this request is to prove that I don’t endorse my previous activities and also because those articles were created unprofessionally, ignoring basic guidelines of notability, copyright, sources etc (ignored because of immaturity and even deliberately ). As I claim that I have nothing more to do with what I said in the past and I want to start over cleanly, so I just want to make sure that whenever I get to start over, my previous unprofessional and illegitimate editing does not exist as my contributions otherwise the reasons I gave for unblock won’t make sense. All now I’m looking for is to delete my past and start again.--Musa Raza (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:37, 5 June 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.

Administrator note Musa Raza, were you being paid for your article creation or other edits? Per WP:PAID you would have to disclose that, along with who was paying you, who your client(s) was/were, and any other relevant details about payment of any kind. I've been dealing with sockpuppetry issues for a long, long time, and it's clear that many people who are motivated to commit sockpuppetry, especially ones who create articles on highly-publicised things like movies and TV shows, or who repeatedly recreate articles, are being paid, yet nobody ever wants to admit that. If it were true in your case, admitting it would probably go a long way in demonstrating good-faith. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor note: I have knowingly added or tried to add unsourced material and copyrighted photos to some “favorite” articles. I admit that. But I never edited to get paid.—Musa Raza (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New 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).

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am blocked since 2016 for repeatedly abusing multiple accounts. When I was blocked I was using this account only but it was created after my previous account was banned. This was going on for so long. I abused many accounts. During all blocks, I posted many requests for unblock but I didn't really explain the reasons for which admins would trust me. That is why I am still blocked. Now I have understood that not admins but I am myself the reason my block is still active. My attitude in the past was reckless and it couldn't be accepted. I have previously argued about my blocks but now I say that they were totally right. Now I am posting this request hoping to start over leaving behind the past. I want to start again cleanly and contribute Wikipedia under its guidelines. I won't defend myself at all. I will accept whatever the judgement admins give. Whenever I am unblock, I will edit as new user and only according to the rules.
Also I was asked by an admin about my editing that If I did paid editing. I'll also explain that. I never got paid to edit but I did some illegitimate editing on behalf of people who approached me, on the articles that I created mostly on biographical articles and also on some favorite articles. I never said that before but I am telling it now even if it cause my chances of unblock to decrease. I just want to start cleanly whenever it is. To prove my claims I request admins to delete my contributions that still exist on Wikipedia. These are links (xtools sigma) to articles that I published and used to edit on behalf of others. I ask admins to permanently delete them and any other edit by me they find.--Musa Raza (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 11:44, 21 June 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.

@ReaderofthePack and Cyphoidbomb: Tagging you this time.--Musa Raza (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins help

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I want the articles I created in block invasion to be deleted so I can post an unblock request. The links to articles are (xtools sigma).-Musa Raza (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Yamla (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: When asked I mentioned in my unblock request that some of them are promotional. I thought It's a right thing to request deletion.--Musa Raza (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Maybe you're interested.--Musa Raza (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK REQUEST NEW

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).

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am eligible to post this request and I have completed the WP:OFFER. I understand that I ignored policies of Wikipedia and that my block was legit and on merit.
Looking for unblock so I can began contributions as a new user without showing any disruptive behavior like past. I will keep in mind that any kind of disruptive behavior or vandalism is not acceptable and can't be allowed on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Block evasion as User:Asadkharal as recently as April means that you are not eligible to take the Standard Offer until at least October. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:52, 16 July 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.

Admins help1

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

My last two unblock requests were closed because they received no responses. I have posted a new request today. Looking for admin help for review of the new unblock request.--Musa Raza (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed; declined. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: I did not evaded block. The user seems to be editing a particular article and other articles related to that article. I recently asked admin help for deletion of articles I created. Why would I evade block after that? Please look for a substantial evidence. I did not create any account at all.--Musa Raza (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Talk page access revoked. WP:UTRS is your only path forward now. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22085 was submitted on Jul 16, 2018 12:45:02. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22093 was submitted on Jul 17, 2018 06:13:24. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22189 was submitted on Jul 27, 2018 08:52:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sanam Teri Kasam 2016.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sanam Teri Kasam 2016.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pak Sarzameen Party logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pak Sarzameen Party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zaiqa TV

The article Zaiqa TV has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no apparent evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24589 was submitted on Apr 04, 2019 00:06:22. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I posted an unblock request via UTRS yesterday and I was told to post the request here. Just Chilling also said that this could be my last opportunity to get unblocked so I’m explaining in detail. I joined Wikipedia in 2014 with good faith to create new articles that I didn’t find on the site. I began editing without reading any guidelines. I tried creating articles but were deleted for failing WP:N. Just few days after joining I wanted to change my username but I didn’t know how to so I created another account. As I began to use the new account, I realized that I could cheat Wikipedia but before I could do that I was blocked. After that I created many account to edit and got banned every time. I also kept denying and lying about it. I left for some time and came back again with this account. This time I read some basic rules of creating articles and decided to edit differently to escape ban and I was successful. I created many articles and got rights of auto-patrolled, pending changes reviewer. I was trusted only because I would remove blatant vandalism and I would create more articles. I deliberately did copyright infringements, unsourced and uneutral editing and many other inappropriate activities (Ponyo knows that). In 2016 I was finally caught by the admin (ReaderofthePack) who had blocked me first time back in 2014. And again I began to lie and make false claims but this time I went too far. I misbehaved and perhaps offended User:ReaderofthePack which was really wrong. I apologise for that. I also abused my right to use talk page, repeatedly asked admins to undelete my created articles. This was also not right and I have in the last few requests and now again ask for deletion of all those articles. I have not created any account since 2016. I have posted many unblock requests too but I have been told that the standard offer is not helpful if you don’t make admins believe you. So all I can do to make you believe is try to explain you that I have now actually understood the guidelines from basic editing to creating articles and even bigger becoming an admin. I have learned all. However If I got unblocked I won’t be editing that much as I used to. I will just be slow and steady. Probably I’ll retire after some time. I’m not that much interested in Wikipedia now as I remain busy but if I want to edit I need an unblocked account. So I am requesting admins to unblock me. In a long time people do change and I have. I’m grown up, I’m 18 years old now. Cyphoidbomb asked me once that if I did paid editing. Paid editing is that someone pays you to edit their articles. I did it for free. On my user page I had linked my social media accounts so I was approached by many people to edit behalf of them, adding unsourced content. Many people contacted me through talk page as well. I did all this but I didn’t get paid. Many of the biographical/film articles were created. That’s why I’m requesting deletion of all articles. Now I have explained every crime I did. I have talked about it because I want to make you believe that now I regret these actions. I am now completely transformed into a educated editor. All I want is an account to edit. After learning guidelines I did not create a new account I’m here to clean this dirty account. I am actually changed. I mean it I won’t and I can’t be the user I was. This is my request for unblock to admins. One more thing I want to say is that my last few requests were rejected on the basis of alleged creation of new account to edit. No I did not create any account, I have lied alot and made many silly claims denying socking but this time I’m telling the truth. I don’t how to make you believe this. It was Asadkharal suspected of being me because the user re-created a page Rashid Khawaja, that I had previously created, and edited Faizan Khawaja which was also created by me both these articles are related to each other as father-son. You can see in the investigation that the there is no CheckUser confirmation and the blocking user 5 albert square says its Quacking. Yeah it would be quacking if I do something like this. So I ask for CheckUser investigation which I will and I know I will have to accept if made. I am ready to wait another 8/12 months without evading block if the administration thinks I’m still not trustworthy.

Accept reason:

Per below, after successful appeal at WP:AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my view to Musa Raza that, having regard to their history, it was likely that this appeal would need to go to the Community by way of WP:AN. Just Chilling (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Musa, what was your first account? Was it Mnaqvii or did you have another before that? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Yes, Mnaqvii was my first account. There’s no account before that.-Musa Raza (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should go to WP:AN for a community consensus decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this should go to AN. They do seem more genuine this time around, FWIW. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee and ReaderofthePack: Are either of you leading this charge? Also, wouldn't we be considering unblocking Mnaqvii, rather than Musa Raza, since we rarely unblock sock accounts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take it to AN later today if nobody else does so first. I think I saw somewhere that the password for Mnaqvii has been lost? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee and Cyphoidbomb: I’ll try to access it. I don’t concern which account is unblocked. Also will this be possible to vanish all other accounts? I’m also interested in clean start but with active block I’m not eligible.-Musa Raza (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack: Thank you for the comment. I reread the emails I sent you. Yes those were nasty messages. I want to you please accept my apologies. I can’t believe I wrote that. This is not a stunt to get support for unblock. I await for your response.-Musa Raza (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee and Cyphoidbomb: I have some concerns that I would like to address before the process of reviewing begins at AN. Would be really thankful if you help out.-Musa Raza (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think we can hold off from ANI for now, so how do you want to address these concerns? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Okay here are few things that I want to be explained.

Whenever I’m unblocked, now or years later, what will happen to my other accounts? Will I be able to vanish them with deletion of talk pages that are rarely deleted, or they will remain same as they are now, described as sock accounts?
Or will I be able to WP:Clean start, creating a new account and not just abandoning other accounts but vanishing them and changing the new account’s user name to the user name that vanished account had?
Will the articles that I created will be deleted as I requested? As I said many articles were created on behalf of other people and they can also be deleted per WP:G5 right now. I do not want to tell here publicly which were those articles specifically.

These are the things that I really want to do before I make began editing again. I do not know if I could.

P.S: Another thing regarding the unblock request and its responses. I have in my previous many requests said that what I said now, like I have read all guidelines, I’m changed etc. Yes I have read guidelines but it’s not like before that just unblock be so I can began editing again. I won’t be creating articles and I won’t edit much. When I joined I was 13 and now I’m 18. I’m trying to explain again that I have matured and I am not the person I was.-Musa Raza (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the community agrees to unblock you, that would put you back in good standing, and by my understanding you would then be eligible to request vanishing of your other accounts - but I suspect there would be serious opposition to deleting their talk pages, and I wouldn't be supportive of that myself. You would need to identify all of your accounts - confirm/refute the ones in the categories linked at User:Mnaqvii and identify any missed ones, but you'd really need to do that anyway for the AN discussion. One possible route might be to pursue unblock at AN, see what the general reaction is, and then think about what to do with your other accounts after that if the unblock request is accepted. Something I would probably support is a probationary period (of maybe six months) before considering vanishing them. Anyway, I can't say for sure either way, but those are my early thoughts.

A full clean start with a new account and vanish all of your current accounts? According to policy I think it would be a possibility, but I doubt it would meet with approval, as I'm sure people would want to be able to keep an eye on you for at least an interim period. I would not support a complete clean start right now myself.

As for deleting articles (WP:G5 etc), I think that would have to be on a case-by-case basis - for example, any which others have worked on might be seen as sufficiently someone else's work to now be ineligible. If you want to send me a list of them by email, I'll be happy to have a look over them and give you my opinion.

Right now, I'd suggest just going for the AN unblock appeal without adding any complications, as the community decision on that is the big issue - nothing else will matter if that is not accepted.

Finally, "When I joined I was 13 and now I’m 18. I’m trying to explain again that I have matured and I am not the person I was" is very positive in my view, and I think that would work in your favour. Five years makes a huge difference to maturity at that age. (I'm heading off for the night now, but I'll check responses (yours and others) tomorrow morning.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you for explaining. The talk pages have all disgusting stuff by me that’s why I wanted them deleted. Now as per your suggestion I look forward to AN discussion. I’ll see if others responded but will sort this all out after getting unblocked.-Musa Raza (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages could possibly be courtesy blanked (again, maybe after a probationary period), but we can think about that later. I'll start a discussion at WP:AN shortly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at WP:AN#Unblock request for User:Musa Raza. If you have any further comments or responses to anyone's comments, please post them here and I or someone else will copy them over for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the accounts I have created were caught and are mentioned here. There are no any other accounts however after getting blocked I edited as this IP and submitted drafts. But User:Ponyo deleted all. The IP was temporarily blocked. Suspected users User:Xoloa500s and User:Asadkharal are not my accounts. I do not know when Xoloa500s was created and I was never asked or told about it. I discovered it in the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mnaqvii and I once, while blocked, said that it’s not my account.-Musa Raza (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After I said that I can’t login to my first account I actually managed to log in when I spontaneously tried an old password. Now I can’t remember what was that password. I’m trying all the passwords I remember. And I’ll inform you as soon as I succeed. I do not have access to the e-mail so its the only way.-Musa Raza (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Is the oppose to deletion of talk pages general or because of bad standing? Will it be possible to do so after probation period is over?-Musa Raza (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC

It's general, because user talk pages are not deleted except under exceptional circumstances. I'd be happy to look at the situation after the probationary period - but a vanishing of the accounts at that time is also a possibility and might effectively achieve the same thing. We can talk about it at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was also expecting comments from blocking admins at AN but there are none so far. Kindly request them to comment if you think they should be.-Musa Raza (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian and Ponyo: I’m requesting you to comment at AN. Thanks (Requested myself. Shouldn’t ask others to edit behalf of me).-Musa Raza (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had limited involvement with this case other than to block a sock four years ago. Unless there is a specific question for me, I don't have anything to add to the AN discussion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant to notify those two, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

This is the list of all the articles created by me and I requested for deletion.--Musa Raza (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that meet criteria of speedy deletion (G5 or other):

G5 or else/Stubs

Articles that cannot be deleted under G5:

Edited
Survive the Summer Sachin: A Billion Dreams Chalay Thay Saath Amjad Sabri Half Girlfriend (film) Raabta (film) Mumtaz Qadri Waiting (2015 film) Chupan Chupai Islamabad United in 2016 Quetta Gladiators in 2016 Peshawar Zalmi in 2016 Karachi Kings in 2016 Lahore Qalandars in 2016 Eros Now Ek Thi Marium Uzair Baloch Pillowtalk (song) Lahore Se Aagey

Thanks for the list - I'm happy to go through them once the unblock discussion is concluded. 7 days will be up soon and I can ask someone to review and close it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the help. Btw G5 won’t be applicable when I’m unblocked.-Musa Raza (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think G5 could still be used for articles that were created by user who was evading a block at the time, or we could use G7 (author requests deletion). For ones that look good, you could just effectively adopt them as your own under your unblocked account and keep them. We can take our time to review them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have unblocked you per consensus at AN. Welcome back.

Your unblock is subject to a couple of restrictions:

You must not edit from any other account for a period of twelve months from now. After that, you will be able to use other accounts per the restrictions at WP:SOCKLEGIT or create a clean start account if you choose to do so.
You have agreed to help clean up your past COI editing and Boing! said Zebedee has agreed to oversee this. The community has accepted this commitment in good faith and I hope that this faith does not proved to be misplaced.

I hope you have a long, productive and enjoyable wiki career. GoldenRing (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Thanks. Yes, I will definitely comply with all the given conditions. It’s good to be back. I will now focus on developing a professional wiki career.--Musa Raza (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling, Boing! said Zebedee, and Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for the support. I’m looking forward to work with you all to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia.--Musa Raza (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the best and if you need anything, please feel free to ask. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck from me too - let me know if you need any help on any of those COI articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Thanks.--Musa Raza (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Neha Kakkar

A tag has been placed on Template:Neha Kakkar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

template that has no links at all.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Neha Kakkar

Template:Neha Kakkar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Masumrezarock100

Hello, Renamed user 864c542a23313621. You have new messages at WP:FFU.
Message added 22:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've replied there. Masum Reza^📞 22:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Adhura Milan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Adhura Milan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 22#Adhura Milan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sayyan (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sayyan (film) 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/Sayyan (film) 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. BOVINEBOY2008 23:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sayyan poster.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sayyan poster.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Whistle (2017 film)

The article Whistle (2017 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film, tagged for 4 years. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Shani Haider" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shani Haider. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Shani Haider until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PTV Sports.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PTV Sports.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nadeem Beyg has been nominated for renaming

Category:Nadeem Beyg has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1857a (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Karim Jovian for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karim Jovian, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karim Jovian until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dil Se Kehne Do

The article Dil Se Kehne Do has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Potentially unreleased film from 2016 (was it ever released??). Couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tahira Qazi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tahira Qazi 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/Tahira Qazi 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.

Mooonswimmer 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Senti Aur Mental

The article Senti Aur Mental has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Canceled film, coverage is largely PR and does not meet WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Senti Aur Mental for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Senti Aur Mental 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/Senti Aur Mental 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 until the discussion has finished.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aleeze Nasser for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aleeze Nasser 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/Aleeze Nasser 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 until the discussion has finished.

—Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pakistani television posters

A tag has been placed on Category:Pakistani television posters indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]