User talk:Yousufshakeel65

Yousufshakeel65, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Yousufshakeel65! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Smsarmad. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. SMS ^Talk 09:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Nawaz Sharif, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. SMS ^Talk 14:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link that I inserted at Nawaz Sharif was not spam Yousufshakeel65 (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC) I am sorry if I offended you but bear with me. :)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for persistently adding unsuitable links to articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2012 (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).

Yousufshakeel65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

JamesBWatson I may have made some mistakes, but I was new to wikipedia. The external links that smsarmad and you have removed from the program mes were of the copyright holder of the Sitcoms in territory of Pakistan. They were not spam. Please consider, as legally only copyright holder should link to content of the page if anybody wants to watch any episodes etc. Yousufshakeel65 (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. All you've done is insert dozens of links to a commercial website. That's called spam on Wikipedia, and it is entirely unwelcome. Do not link to that website again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 30 October 2012 (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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "if anybody wants to watch any episodes", but if you mean that you were linking to the commercial web site in order to get people to watch episodes there, then that is exactly what the problem is. It is unacceptable to provide links for the purpose of bringing traffic to a commercial web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson lol no, I was not linking a 'commercial site' looking to make money. The site that you are calling commercial holds copyright for the content that you are not allowing it to link with. Thats just insane. There is no commercial intent involved at all. Maybe I added too many links too soon, but you cannot change the fact that the site owns copyrights for the programmes and that is a REALITY, and wikipedia not allowing it to link (because of my personal mistake) is just crazy. Anyway I am outta here.

Also JamesBWatson since you are administrator, I would like to lodge a complaint of Smsarmad with you. He is just after me because of he differs in political opinion with me. He apparently favors military dictatorship in the country and 80% of his contributions revolve around it. He got obsessed with me because I added an entry "Anti-Army Stance" in article Nawaz Sharif ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan with proper video citation of his interview. He bent down upon reverting every entry of mine. True, I am new to wikipedia but just look at the Nawaz Sharif article it is the 'tamest' information that you would find about him on the internet. That guy was deposed by Military Junta and now he is back in country and he is after the military's throat but you would find outdated information about him there on the article, with ZERO information about what he has been doing since 2010. Smsarmad has added useless entries(pages) about cantonments and overtly burdensome army regiments of Pakistan of which nobody cares without citations and reference and they are existing on wikipedia? How come? Just because he started on the wikipedia 2 years ago?... Where is the neutrality now? If you cant support democratic voice on wikipedia atleast neutrality should be maintained instead of paid editors who roam around on Army's Payroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousufshakeel65 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 October 2012‎

You may like to reread what I wrote. I did not suggest that you were "looking to make money" or that there was "commercial intent" in your editing. I simply said that posting links in order to get people to go to that site to view the videos there was editing to promote use of the site. Whether you personally stood to gain, or whether you were doing it out of totally selfless motives is irrelevant. I have no idea what you think is the relevance of the fact that the site belongs to the copyright holder. Whoever holds the copyright, posting links to attract people to that site is promoting use of that site. That is all there is to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson Thanks for the reply, your point is noted and I would refrain from indulging in such act again. But what about Nawaz Sharif entry that you reverted, citing it as dubious contribution? The contribution I added is the latest development about that person (ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan). Wikipedia is being patrolled by pakistani editors on payroll of Pakistan Army, they would always flag it... But I ask you as administrator to do something about it, protect FREE SPEECH :) Thanks :)

There is no such thing as "free speech" on Wikipedia. You'll also want to stop your accusations of others as being on the payroll of entities, or you'll find this becomes a much longer block than anticipated (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins Free Speech or Neutrality call it whatever you may want to call. If Pakistan Army runs full page advertisements on Pakistani News papers looking to recruit wikipedia editors, then thats not called accusing thats called stating facts. Half the postings these guys do are Armed Forces related. Ban me for all i care. But as administrators you should look into monitoring the reverts of old editors also, especially if they are from countries like Pakistan where everything is questionable. Yousufshakeel65 (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to honest contributions. Maybe I overdid citations but every new editor tends to get excited. I have apologized for it. But I stand firmly on my edit on Nawaz Sharif after which that pakistani editor smsarmad started revenge reverts. If he were honest he would have put citation needed tag instead of reverting my edit on Nawaz Sharif? Atleast give people a chance to improve the article rather than impose Martial Law on Wikipedia Pakistan also just like they imposed upon the Pakistan itself. Yousufshakeel65 (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have conversed with you before, but I would just like to advise you that I think you should take a break and cool down a bit. Smsarmad is an experienced and respected editor, and if you believe that hurling accusations will somehow get you unblocked, it won't. Mar4d (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Talafi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PTV and Ptv (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Talafi[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and 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. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Talafi for deletion[edit]

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

DonaldD23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]