User talk:Iamsaa

File permission problem with File:Moon786.jpg

Possibly unfree File:Dil.gif

Blocked Per

sockpuppetry.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

— Scientizzle 17:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I request you to kindly help

this article and lift banned upon me.--Iamsaa (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In order for me to help you, we need to figure a few things out now. Read the content below and reply. — Scientizzle 14:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer these questions

First things first: please give answers to these questions, in each of the subsections below, providing enough detail such that I can be sure you understand what I'm asking.

Sockpuppeting

• Do you understand what
  sockpuppeting
  is and why it is not appropriate for Wikipedia?
• If allowed another chance to edit, will you promise not to violate these rules?
  • I do unsdertand that
    sockpuppeting
    on wikipedia is prohibited and I will try my best to comply with policies of wikipedia.

Meancing edits

• Do you understand why this edit and this edit are inappropriate?
  • As per my understanding this edit is not appropriate as it contains a personal attack and beleive me, I am not behind this.

Article ownership

• Do you understand that you
  do not own
  the content of any Wikipedia articles? Do you understand that this means you cannot prevent others from editing the content, even those with whom you disagree?
• I do understand that once an article has been written on wikipedia, it's no more a personal property.

Sockpuppeting 2

You responded to this section at 19:45 UTC, March 15, 2010 stating that you understood and would abide by

Don't forget User:Serfarosh as well. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No its not my account at all. You can't blame me of

WP:SOCK as I wasn't involve at all, you can check through my IP and rest according to wikipedia.--Iamsaa (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

jpgordon has checked your IP addresses. It's clear that these accounts

Share an IP address

and, since the have been remarkably similar and single-mindedly oriented towards a specific end, they are treated as a single account. To wit:

Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.

That means, simply, although it is technically possible that multiple individual persons are editing through different accounts but using the same computer(s) and internet connection with Wikipedia and editing in the same manner, it doesn't matter whether it's one actual person or a dozen.

Frankly, though, I think you've been lying, Iamsaa. I am through playing games; I've given you more benefit-of-the-doubt than you deserve based on your editing history. This edit from today is even more evidence that you will not respect Wikipedia rules and guidelines. As such, I will offer no further assistance and will block on sight any accounts or IP addresses that appears to be evading your indefinite block, and will revert all edits made by those accounts as is appropriate for a

banned user. — Scientizzle 13:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Again you are blamming me, that's all you can do, and favor yonus & MFI. You are yourself promoting MFI & Younus and blamming me of sock-pupptory, which I have already said that I am not involved in, you the one who violate wp and use WP for own ill-deeds and blame others. Your attitude is irritating, your behaviour can't be tolerate by any mean.--Iamsaa (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that there is abusive sockpuppetry occuring is blindingly obvious. Why continue to lie? I have no stake in the content at any of those articles beyond trying to make sure Wikipedia is as reliable a source of information as I can manage. I'd never even heard of this Shahi guy until I first tried to delete than fixed up his article on WP a coupole years ago. As far as I'm concerned, I could care less whether one cult thinks another cult is wrongly representing their shared cult leader...it's all very stupid to me.

I gave you multiple chances to contribute constructively. You deliberately ignored my advice and lied directly to me. I'm not stupid--I can tell your writing style--and there is clear evidence that the same IPs and the same computers have been used to represent "multiple" individuals in violation of

banned because you have been repeatedly disruptive. If you want out of this ban, maybe you should demonstrate a willingness to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'd suggest beginning with no more IP socking. — Scientizzle 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to say no as I was not involve in Edit Wars occured on wikipedia, you can unblock me and keep an eye on my account, I have always abide the policy of wikipedia, this article is an evident that how true you are. Thats all I can say for the time being.--Iamsaa (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say above, on your talk page, that you are "an authorized representative of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi" and "the office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam". For someone of your rank and the follower of a

And if you are of this rank and you are not behind the edit warring sock puppets, then it should be within your powers to request that these people refrain from edit warring and IP sock puppetry. Would Gohar Shahi approve of the abusive language and disruptive tactics used by these socks who claim to be his followers? I think not. Esowteric+Talk 12:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, all I can do to advise people not instruct them, I am not responding of others wrong-doing, therefore, it is my humble request to you and all administrators of wikipedia to consider my request.--Iamsaa (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about ready to throw in the towel here and retire from Wikipedia. I didn't come here to engage in conflict but to try to give a little back to the community.

If admitting to sockpuppetry would mean a dent to one's honour and a loss of face that one would find personally—or perhaps culturally—too much to bear, then perhaps we can find some easier means of handling this? Some mutually-acceptable "exit strategy" from the conflict?

Rest assured: I am dedicated to the integrity of Wikipedia and one of my chief aims here is, if there is going to be a fight, then to keep that fight clean, above board and by the rules; with some sympathy, compassion and good humour thrown in for good measure.

Rest assured: if you can provide

As an aside, you may also find the essay Writing for the opponent a useful read. Esowteric+Talk 09:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help but my concerned is that why others are editing false information in this article, they insist on Gohar Shahi was founder of MFI, which has now been a part of this article. Why is it so? Why wikipedia is promoting younus & MFI? Gohar Shahi was founder of ASI and MFI & Younus dont belong to Gohar Shahi. You are listening to one side and ignoring other?--Iamsaa (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, take that as an accusation on User:Esowteric's dignity, as he has given his best to these few articles. He has supported the idea of including, rather than excluding information given forth into these articles. I've found a number of verifiable references saying that Shahi has founded MFI or is somehow or another related to AlGohar, (hence, his name AlGohar) as has User:Omirocksthisworld and a few others. Esowteric has justly applied verifiable information from both sides, yours and the MFI's (if they are at all indifferent to each other) thats the reason the article now includes both sides of the information. The article has no more controversial issues and brings forth verifiability and just information for the community to read. I hope you are able to understand that and learn from the mistakes you have done. --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested by another user that you could provide a link from the ASI website where it discusses MFI...i.e. it could be mentioned in the article that "ASI doesn't consider MFI as being connected to Gohar Shahi in any way". I'm sure User: Esowteric, Scientizzle and all others are trying to keep things fair and listen to both sides, but your own attempts to cooperate and take into account others' suggestions would also be appreciated. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 23:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a lie as no reputable reference has been provided that Gohar Shahi Found MFI and here Omirocksthisworld has confessed that MFI was founded after disappearance of Gohar Shahi, when Gohar Shahi was disappeared how can he found an Organization?--Iamsaa (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not

").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

sign your comments

with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

articles for deletion

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sockpuppet investigation

sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsaa

. Thank you.

Hopefully this will clear you. Esowteric+Talk 13:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so.--Iamsaa (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...See the update. Will you stop lying now? — Scientizzle 15:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not lying, I am unable to understand that why

sockpuppetry?--Iamsaa (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You are lying, and we've had enough. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:ROG.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ROG.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here
  .

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

utrs 30840

• This user is requesting unblocking at UTRS 30840. The appeal is open. Courtesy ping @Jpgordon:. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 07:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal is now closed. Response carried over:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that either the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks for more information.

--Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]