User talk:PreserveOurHistory

Welcome!

Hi PreserveOurHistory! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

The discussion "45,000 real figure. 93,000 exaggerated" did not arrive at a consensus regarding the 45,000 number. Sources almost all agree that the number of prisoners was somewhere in the 91,000 - 97,000 range. Sources disagree regarding how many of them were Pakistani regular army, navy, and air force. You're welcome to try to craft an RfC that sets out the various sources and seeks a consensus way of presenting the inconsistencies in the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean i wouldn't say almost all, since the documentary film I saw claimed 20,000 army and every source i see for 90's range is a new article or is dated decades after 1971. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question won't be resolved on this page. I have no idea what documentary you saw, so can't comment on that. We should be using recent historical scholarship (typically sources published by academic presses in the past 20 years or so). If for some reason you want a more contemporaneous source, one of the oldest I've seen is: Burke, S. M. (1973). "The Postwar Diplomacy of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". Asian Survey. 13 (11): 1036–1049. doi:10.2307/2642858. JSTOR 2642858. Initially, the Simla Agreement was well received in both countries, but by the end of 1972 much of the optimism ... had evaporated. The change for the worse ... resulted from the continuing deadlock over the release of some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children, captured in East Pakistan (the few hundred prisoners captured by each side on the Western front were exchanged on December 1, 1972). --Worldbruce (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i am just seeing one page on those links you said that doesnt say any number for the POWs. Another thing that caused by suspicions was how large the armies were, east pakistan at 90 thousand yet when a couple thousand soldiers die they surrender? I mean according to the pakistani generals they could've gone on after a month but it was something that raised by suspicion. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for butting in, the 93,000 figure for POWs is true, I have access. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Your English is so broken I can't understand what you mean. Worldbruce (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of space travellers by first flight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Embassy, Tokyo moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Afghan Embassy, Tokyo, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

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

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

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of presidents of Pakistan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sumanuil. 08:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to General Secretary of the Communist Party have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sumanuil. 05:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pashtun Rebellion in Pakistan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pashtun Rebellion in Pakistan 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/Pashtun Rebellion in Pakistan 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.

USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Revolution of Dignity, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but "Russia allegedly" doesnt need a source right? please be consistent with your logic PreserveOurHistory (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for the Arab-Israeli dispute area

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days

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

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

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what did I do wrong? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was harassment.

"

why do you want a source? Or are you unaware of this war? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 3:42 am, 2 October 2022, Sunday (28 days ago) (UTC+1)[reply]

why arent you adding it? Why do you insist on wasting my time for a source? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 8:41 am, 8 October 2022, Saturday (21 days ago) (UTC+1)[reply]

if you dont have a clue about this war why are you the one in charge of the article? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 8:42 am, 8 October 2022, Saturday (21 days ago) (UTC+1)[reply]

I really don't have to waste my time with your mental deficiency. Add the edit. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 9:03 am, Today (UTC+1)"

Doug Weller talk 14:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that knowledgeable on Wikipedia, but isn't it the job of the person i was replying to, meant to be that he does edits? If we are not given the permission, and the people straight up ignore us then what the hell do i do? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary editors do not have jobs, although Wikipedia:Administrators like myself do. Also, there is no deadline. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is in charge of an article and if you think it’d ok to call someone mentally deficient then you don’t belong here. Which is where my “job” might come in. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually lets think about it, if someone has been given permission to edit an article, no one else has the permission, then the people who have permission are obliged to edit yes? The Other person was doing disruptive editing because they are ignoring a correction. Please tell me again if its okay to ignore edits! I'd like to hear more about your mindset! PreserveOurHistory (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. In September User:Rsk6400 pointed you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources which clearly says "Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. ". See also WP:VERIFY. When User:Aaron Liu rightly asked for a source, as required, you harassed and insulted him. He couldn't add what you wanted added without a source and I think most editors would have ignored you. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

😹😹😹 This person "Tikka Khan" is featured in another article called "1971 Indo Pakistani war", but is not featured in the article "Bangladesh Liberation War", if anything he is meant to be in the Bangladesh war article and not in the 1971 indo-pak article. Simple correction. This person does not know who Tikka Khan is, so he doesnt know anything about the war. So why not bring people who are actually know at least something about the war? Like I said before, i'm not wasting my time proving something like its not an established fact. Leave it, if you people aren't willing to add this really minor change-request then its your choice. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh golly, I didn't know about this until now. In addition to the points Doug raised,
1. Not everyone automatically subscribes to topics after responding, so the user might not receive notifications for your messages. The {{ping}} template or the @ symbol might help you with that.
2. See WP:ER. It is not the responsibility of the responder to know the sources and the event of the article. It's the responsibility of the request maker to provide sources.
3. See the topic above. The permission is automatically given for editors with 500 edits, not people who applied and have a knowledge on the topic. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve refused to accept that you harassed and insulted an editor and that the request for a source was simple policy and not optional. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that I also must provide evidence that Hitler is the Nazi Party head, if not you wont believe it! I learnt my lesson now. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tikka Khan did not cause an infamous global event or a world-scale war. He isn't nearly as well known/infamous as Hitler, and information about Khan is more likely to be challenged. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bacha Khan and Daoud Khan.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bacha Khan and Daoud Khan.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) 18:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, the Image is solely meant to be used in one Article, Pashtunistan although it was removed. It's added back now. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Abdul Motaleb Malik.png

A tag has been placed on File:Abdul Motaleb Malik.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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. Whpq (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But isnt the Image itself the subject of commentary? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. In this case, the image is from a commercial photo newswire agency and fails to meet WP:NFCC#2. The person in the photo is the the subject of commentary, and not the photograph itself. -- Whpq (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Afghan Embassy, Tokyo

Hello, PreserveOurHistory. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Afghan Embassy, Tokyo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that IPA articles come under the purview of DS

What had the other editor "vandalized" on that page that you resorted to characterizing their edit as such? Your insouciant use of the expression to undo good faith edits is nothing short of scandalous, and you could in fact be sanctioned for such presumptuousness. You had been apprised of the DS being in effect in the topic domain only recently, and also thereupon subjected to a block for causing disruption, so pray tread carefully, and develop a predisposition to assume good faith. Lastly, discuss, not revert, when changes you make are contentious and likely to engender dispute. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? You want me to change wording next time? Or should I stop restoring content others remove without an explanation? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, stop reverting, period. It is also disingenuous on your part to now say that you were "restoring content others remove without an explanation", when the page history clearly shows otherwise. Please desist from edit warring further on the page, and discuss the matter on the talk page. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His explanation had nothing to do with removing the entire image gallery. Do either of us understand what he wrote? What does "last good version before photo bombing" even mean? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is PreserveOurHistory. Thank you. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how long this last? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PreserveOurHistory It's indefinite, lasts until it's lifted. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which administrator am i meant to contact? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PreserveOurHistory, please read WP:TBAN (which was already hyperlinked for you) in conjunction with the above notice, which very lucidly sets forth the sanction placed on you, and strive to scrupulously abide by the injunctions thereof. Edits like this do yourself no good, and you risk inviting blocks of varying severity if you continue to approach it in a cavalier manner and flout your topic ban. If you have any lingering doubts about anything concerning the ban, I suggest you ask for clarification. Lord Roem is already responding to your queries. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PreserveOurHistory that edit was not on only a violation of your ban, it was nonsense - "you can't drive opposite to a steering wheel". In fact, you sit opposite to a steering wheel. Doug Weller talk 08:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

once more, which admin am I meant to contact for reappealing and how do i do it? I've read the appeals process PreserveOurHistory (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PreserveOurHistory That'd be me. If you have something to say, you can do so here, or on my Talk page, up to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reappeal the Ban, I have 100% of my Wikipedia contributions on the topics I have been restricted from (discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan).

Looking at this confused incident, I'd rest the cause on me not understanding what actually the problem was, I was in the mindset that there was nothing wrong. I learnt now to mention everything I desire to do on my talk page, I didn't fully understand that they had a problem with what I was doing, I thought when my edit was reverted and was told "Don't expect others to fix this" after complaining about how my edit disappeared from an older page being reverted that all I had to do afterwards was manually put my edit up again without reverting anything, then there wouldn't be a problem.

I've learnt you stick to the talk page for everything and always ask Questions, I feel I will be able to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as I have since the start of 2022. This was a minor confused incident, I perceived it as my work being taken away without reason and reacted accordingly. I guess I can handle a temporary time ban, but with a permanent ban on the listed topics (discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan) I have no use to this website. Like any other human being I have the capacity to learn and improve from my mistakes.

Best Regards, PreserveOurHistory (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PreserveOurHistory I appreciate the response. This most recent issue arose after you violated 1RR on a page w/ no effort to discuss the matter on the article's Talk (full AE thread here). And, this all happened only a few months after you were blocked for harassing and disruptive conduct in the same topic area.

Here's what I'll say: what I, and I suspect other admins, would like to see is productive contributions in other areas of the site that demonstrate this isn't just talk. If you're able to participate elsewhere problem-free and show you've learned from this experience, you're certainly welcome to ask for a modification of this sanction down the road. But, so fresh off the recent conduct? No can do.

If you wish to appeal this sanction, please read the guide above. Basically, you can submit it to the AE or AN noticeboard. Please remember it remains in effect until you're informed otherwise. That means this would technically be a violation. For the time being, steer clear of any aspect of this topic area. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Roem he’s busy violating the ban at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 January 3]]. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the reason I'm topic banned from Afghanistan since i haven't done anything wrong in an Afghanistan related article, My mistakes were in Indo-pakistani war articles. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration decided that Afghan, Indo and Paki should be included as one topic under discretionary sanctions. See the sanction motion. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the mentioned "Fut perf"'s signature is "Fut.Perf.". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Afghanistan Flag 1974.png

The file File:Afghanistan Flag 1974.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant to File:Flag of Afghanistan (1974–1978).svg. Previously used on one article, which I've replaced it on. (Special:Diff/1131136782)

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding File:Abdul Wali Khan.png Copyright Status

Can you please declare the concern regarding permission OTRS as you are claiming you have received email from image owner, otherwise any of the user can raise objections regarding its copyright status. It will be better to proof it using otrs process because anyone of the volunteer will handle your request.Wallu2 (talk)

File:Abdul Wali Khan.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Abdul Wali Khan.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 25stargeneral (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violation of your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

As a reminder, your topic bans covers all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, which includes deletion discussions about topic-related images. Unless and until the topic ban is lifted or otherwise modified, please avoid anything related to this material to avoid further sanction. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who interprets that rule on defending the image I put up? Is there a page for this topic ban stuff? I want to see a written rule about how the User is not allowed to discuss the validity of an image uploaded. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PreserveOurHistory Yep, this was included in the very first sentence of the original sanction notice above. For your convenience, it's here. The deletion discussion concerned an image of a Pakistani politician; that is indisputably covered in your... India, Pakistan, Afghanistan topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #67636 declined. Unblock request contained threats. If this continues, the block should be extended indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: are you sure it was sent by this user? I know a long term troll who loves to play these dirty games. It's going on for years. [1] Capitals00 (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. No, I'm not sure. I can find out, but it's honestly probably best just to WP:AGF and believe this user did not make the threat on UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Afghan Embassy, Tokyo

If this was the first article that you 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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Afghan Embassy, Tokyo, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:PAF F-86 Sabre 1965 War.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PAF F-86 Sabre 1965 War.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Emblem of the Republic of Afghanistan (1974 - 1978).png

The file File:Emblem of the Republic of Afghanistan (1974 - 1978).png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant to c:File:Emblem of Afghanistan (1974-1978).svg

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-86 Sabre stationed in the East.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:F-86 Sabre stationed in the East.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 09:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:PAF squadron 1965.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PAF squadron 1965.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]