User talk:KhanQadriRazvi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:42, 30 December 2023

August 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Akhtar Raza Khan does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Akhtar Raza Khan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. It seems you've had to be warning about this image in June 2020 and you seem to be removing it again. That image was much discussed and removing it will require consensus. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Akhtar Raza Khan. Eagleash (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did not read it edit summary, and I don't write any thing without any proof so first read the summary and then talk because that image does not have any using right from authors, Wikipedia is using image without permission of his heir, if his heir take any legal action against Wikipedia, than what will be Wikipedia will do? I don't tell them but Some day he will be know that Wikipedia using his father pic without his permission. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhanQadriRazvi (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to User talk:KhanQadriRazvi could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Djm-leighpark) I did not threat anyone nor to Wikipedia, I just asked, what will hapenned when his heir will asked you why you use his father pic without his permission, if you thinked that I threated you then you get wrong. When I looked Akhtar Raza pic I get link as a sourche from Where Akhtar Raza Pic was taken https://muslimmirror.com/eng/renowned-barelvi-cleric-mufti-akhtar-raza-khan-passes-away/ when I clicked that Link , I did not get any Pic of Akhtar Raza Khan On that link, from starting day I am asking from where Wikipedia got this pic so please look it carefully and slove it. Because Wikipedia doesn't have any source of this pic. Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KhanQadriRazvi: The matter was fully discussed on the article talk page and attempting to get me to repeat is likely a matter of WP:COMPETENCY or deliberate disruptiveness though per AGF their may be other reasons. I would ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE for advice, or if you fell I am being inappropriate raise the matter at WP:ANI. I will not be continuing this conversation but if you need to riase the matter further ask at the TEAHOUSE or on an appropriate oard or the article talk page or the image talk page. Please ensure the matter is constructively raised and that it cannot be seem as disruptive. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jama'at Raza-e-Mustafa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Active.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021 continues

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 8. Changes to an immutable closed discussion and showing either lack of WP:COMPETENCY or continued low level disruption/trolling Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 ::@Djm-leighpark first of all I also don't want any argument with you and no more any discussion on this topic, if improving Wikipedia is Disruptive editing then u can block me I don't have any problem, but you only told this one :"::@KhanQadriRazvi: The matter was thoroughly discussed on the talk page of the article and I try to reiterate it is probably WP:COMPETENCY or There is a case of intentional disincentives. Per AGF they may have other reasons. I would ask WP:Teahouse for advice, or I'm being unreasonable if you fell WP:ANI. Will not continue the conversation. But if you need to take this matter further ask at teahouse or the appropriate board or article talk page or image talk page. Please ensure that the matter is raised constructively and does not appear to be disruptive Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:47, 11 Aug 2021 (UTC)" And you accuse me of this Putting up "You're doing disruptive edits constantly low level of disruption/trolling" Let me just say one thing Wikipedia has a lot of articles about Muslim scholars with pictures of them, but except a few, please do understand, please close the discussion, if u remove that pic all problem will be solved, updating is the part of Wikipedia. know please no more discussion on  this topic. Thanks  KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)  KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of ScholarM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. RegentsPark (comment) 13:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

How can you say that I am a puppet, can you give proof of this, I am a free person, Why should I will be someone's puppet, what is need for it, and whatever I write, I write my self, and I writing those things which I know. I do not write anything on saying of someone's, I am a free person, I am not a slave or puppet of any one, who writes on someone's saying, "I am someone's puppet this allegation is totally wrong on me", every person have different opinions, different point of view, different way to tackle problem, so is mine too, Blocking my account by accusing me of being someone's puppet is not a good thing, that's why I am asking to you unblock my account. Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to QadriRazvee, at least. Yamla (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2021 (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.

@Yamla This is my first user id, but currently I am not active or using this user id(QadriRazvee), as you know that I am active by KhanQadriRazvi, how can I called this id is someone puppet because it's my user id. Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla @Mz7 @Eostrix @RegentsPark @GeneralNotability Looking at their combined histories, it looks like they just did an unofficial name change on 2020-04-19 and have indeed not used the old account since they did that. Based on the "unlikely to ScholarM", I'm inclined to unblock, but wanted to pass that by the others involved in the SPI before I did so. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I haven't been involved in the latest SPI, I know the involved users and topic area well enough to make a bold prediction: if KhanQadriRazvi is unblocked now, he's just going to be indefinitely blocked later for the same disruptive editing he's already been warned about above. I'd be willing to throw money down on that wager. I lack the knowledge to comment on the administrative end of things, but I stand by my prediction. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Sure. No problem. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the accounts again and I'm a bit surprised by the technical "unrelated". Ducks quacking but apparently not ducks - or is there something about the technical results that I don't understand? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark When a CU says "technically unrelated", that means from the confidential material in the CU logs (i.e. IP address and browser version strings), they don't look the same. But there's lots of ways somebody can obscure their identity which would evade detection from that standpoint. It's a balancing game of what the technical data says and what a behavioral investigation (i.e. looking at the content of their edits) says, and sometimes it's just not possible to be sure. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'd prefer then that we should let the block stand. Behaviorally, this account edits pretty much the same as ScholarM and the others in the SPI (the image edits are a dead giveaway). But, I'll let you decide based on your reading of the CU. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if you choose to lift the block. Note, of course, that RegentsPark is the blocking admin and does have concerns. Specifically, my statement is meant to clear you of any concerns around the checkuser part of this block, though not about the behaviour of this editor. --Yamla (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My take is I personally am not inclined to believe, on the balance of probability, KhanQadriRazvi and ScholarM are the same person. A number of editors appear to share the same ideology, to what extent they are independent or conspiring or deliberately intending to be disruptive I not know. My loose understanding is the image is published on English Wikipedia under the "Fair use" policy; and to my best understanding the image is within the rules of the relevant policy. The image would not be accepted on Commons for example. While wikipedia is "not censored" is does have a what I have a "standard of expected decency" policy (the interpretation of that might vary with location ... some indigenous people might have no issues with nudity yet having great objection to any photograph being taken). There is a case for an unblocking admin to give consideration perhaps to edits post 11 August 2021, however Discretionary sanction alerts were issued 2 May 2021 (and blanked off talk page 5 August 2021) which allows discretion for a block, especially after a closed immutable discussion was edited. I leave the actual call to others. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all of the above, I'm going to unblock. In addition to the "unlikely" from CU, I also see some other pattern differences (ask me off-wiki) that makes me pretty sure this isn't ScholarM. But, KhanQadriRazvi please understand that this is not a "get out of jail free" card. While I believe we made a mis-identification about you being the same person as ScholarM, there are still concerns about edit warring and the like. I'm sure people will be keeping watch of your activities. Regardless of being cleared of being a sockpuppet, you will still be expected to only make constructive edits. Failure to do so can lead to you being re-blocked for disruptive editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ala Hazrat family tree

I was surfing the talkpage of Grand Mufti of India and came to your account and found the family tree of Ala Hazrat, i just moved it to a Template. You can edit that in future if you want. Thanks — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzak Allah Khairan, but its not completed KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s fine, you can edit it now also! Really appreciate your work. I invite you to join Sunni Community Wikimedia. Please leave a message on my talk page to know more about it. Thanks Allah Hafiz — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ala Hazrat family completed

Template:Ala Hazrat family completed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ashrafi Family Tree

Template:Ashrafi Family Tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]