User talk:KashanAbbas

Sockpuppetry case

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Liwa Zainebiyoun. Skitash (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have my sources. I would add them, if I wasn't blocked from editing. KashanAbbas (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for the misuse of my ability to edit Wikipedia. I promise to never again make my own analysis and only add sourced content. I admit my mistake and take full responsibility. I request to be unblocked as I admit my mistake of misuse and promise not to do such things in the future.

Decline reason:

This unblock request is vague and doesn't address the actual reason for an unblock. In your next unblock request (if you make one), you will need to:

Explicitly state whether Wikiislamtime was or was not you.
If it isn't you, then a WP:CheckUser will need to verify that fact, and assuming you are not lying about that, you can be unblocked.
If it it you, then you will need to acknowledge your WP:Sockpuppetry, which is completely separate from the original original research/synthesis violations. It might be possible to be unblocked despite that, but the path ahead is much harder. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:30, 12 July 2025 (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 didn't understand what I was banned for the first time around. Thank you for the explaination. KashanAbbas (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2025 (GMT+5)

{{CU needed}}, editor asserts they are unrelated to Wikiislamtime (via UTRS). -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are Unlikely to Wikiislamtime - right country, but different region. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the confirmation. Could you also confirm my second request? First one was written out of panic because I thought that I was blocked due to disruptive Editing. I've made a second unblock request which is more properly worded. KashanAbbas (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I don't have any affiliation with the account which I was accused of sockpuppeting. It was an honest mistake by Sitkash. I reverted Sitkash's edit on Liwa Zainebiyoun, he restored it, a third party shows up (Wikiislamtime), who also reverted Sitkash's edit. This gave him a reasonable suspicion that I was sock puppeting. However, it is false. I am neither the owner of that account (Wikiislamtime) nor do I have any affiliation with whoever owns it. The IPs are completely different. It is simply a third party which intervened in good faith to end, what it considered, an edit war.

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you since CheckUser has refuted the original reason for the block. But please be careful. The warning above at the top of this page still stands. Calling people racial slurs is still inappropriate. You are still at risk being blocked for future misconduct. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KashanAbbas: Calling editors racial slurs like "pajeet" is unacceptable. Skitash (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake on my part and I admit it. The reason I did that is because he committed vandalism on the Sectarian violence in Pakistan page, he replaced the words "Pakistan Armed Forces" with "Pakistan Aand Forces" twice in the Infobox. In Urdu/Hindi "Anad" means "balls" (testicles). So it was literal vandalism. However, I got too emotional and made a racist statement and I fully admit my mistake. KashanAbbas (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, so long as I'm blocked, I'm unable to apologize or fix my mistake. But I do take complete responsibility for my mistake. KashanAbbas (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Thoughts on an unblock here? It seems like the sockpuppetry accusation that was the reason for the block was disproven so they should return to the on-final-warning-but-not-blocked state they were in before that fiasco. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, put the batter back in the box with two strikes. OK. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you good sir. KashanAbbas (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. From now on I won't call anyone Racial slurs on wikipedia. I fully admit my mistake. KashanAbbas (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review Wikiislamtime's unblock request? I looked at his talk page and he's still blocked despite it being confirmed he has no affiliation. I'm just trying to help some random person. KashanAbbas (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their unblock request was declined by another admin. Wikiislamtime is welcome to make a new unblock request pointing out what happened here and myself or another admin will look into it. I'm not going to unblock Wikiislamtime as an automatic action because it's very suspicious behavior for one's second edit to be to jump into someone else's content dispute, and I would like them to provide an explanation of how that ended up happening before an unblock. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. I understand. Thank you for your time and attention! KashanAbbas (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Saqib Haider Karbalai

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 Saqib Haider Karbalai 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 real person or group of people that 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 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. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muttahida Qaumi Movement - London

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking states, "major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: Countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese)" So I have removed the links to these major nations' articles. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. KashanAbbas (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]