User talk:Muhammadahmad79

« بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم » bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

Not currently under discussion

Topics which have not been edited for last 7 days are moved to "Not currently under discussion" section. However, If there will be any edits made to any topic under this section, then that topic will be moved to "Currently under discussion" section.

General Discussions

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Stop POV pushing on Sherwani

You have recently deleted a lot of content on the Sherwani page, and replaced it with your POV. Wikipedia is not meant to promote one's own POV rather for presenting facts. Use talk page for Adding the content on the page next time, don't engage in edit wars. Barthateslisa (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Article was full of false and unsourced information which merged the two different dresses with different origins namely sherwani and achkan. All I deleted was the unsourced content and all I added were the common facts with some sources. - Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology in medieval Islam

Thank you for reverting yourself. I was rather surprised to receive a notification that my previous edit had been undone by you, but pleased to note on visiting the history page you had realised your error and corrected it. Self-correction is one of the good things about Wikipedia. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! very much for your appreciation, it truly means alot for me. :) - Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awan

If you add that crap to the Awan article again, I will make sure you are blocked for disruption. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you calling it "crap"? Is it just because you don't want it on the article? I tried to address all your concerns and most of the time I thought they were not even legitimate but I still tried to address them all. I am just adding the majority's view on the Subject with reliable sources. If you think they are not reliable then please do point it out and if you think they are biased then please see WP:BIASED. does this "make sure" means that you will try to use your influence over the administrators to get me blocked? It does not suite a wikipedia editor to threat another editor, please read WP:AOBF.--Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re blocking - I know when something is pretty much inevitable. In your case, it should happen now & there are at least three experienced contributors who are very fed up of your antics. You have had numerous warnings and attempted provisions of advice, none of which seem to have changed your disruptive behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invites/Notices

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for persistent POV-pushing using unreliable sources. In these edits, you use 1) a self-published (Lulu.com) translation of a medieval author, Sultan Bahu, 2) Sultan Bahu again, though your author field says something else, 3) a reprint from the Raj era, and 4) actually a good academic source which contradicts the other three, and which you, in your text, choose to argue with. (With the significant edit summary "added POV of Aitzaz Ahsan." So per your editing, medieval authors and Raj authors are the voice of truth, while the modern academic is "POV".) And despite past warnings about presenting thing neutrally, this series of edits opens with a definitive statement, ie it states, in Wikipedia's voice, your unsupported opinion that the Awan are of Arab origin. Finally, when these edits were reverted with explanations, you edit warred to restore them, with the edit summary "reverting - please stop POV pushing and creating false balance." No, you're the one POV-pushing, based on some of the weakest sources I've seen.

This sanction 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. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 10:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but I think that your judgement is completely wrong and you have indulged in Abuse of Power. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry to say that you obviously created a sock puppet a matter of minutes after this account was topic banned.

Currently under discussion

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

July 2020

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 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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 10:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]