User talk:Tamjeed Ahmed

Can you please read the talk page as to why the content you added was not there, its been discussed ad infinitum and rejected. He has not yet been prosecuted so its inclusion may violate

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

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note the page is under 1rr, so you may in fact now need this

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 Delhi riots. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tayi Arajakate. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Rahul Roushan seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Mr. Slatersteven, all edits that I made were correct and The Wire is an acceptable Wikipedia source. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make your case at the edit war report, so admins can see your justification.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I dont think I should be blocked we are still discussing thr matter we were fighting for Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. Yamla (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2021 (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.

You really need to read

wp:editwar and the guidance for appeals. The reason you were blocked is because you edit warred after being asked to discuss it. your first comment at talk was this [[1]], your last revert was [[2]], half an hour later. You edit warred whilst it was being discused.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Tamjeed Ahmed! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Aurangzeb that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Pavlov2 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can u tell which page I "created'? I don't remember creating any page like it Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You created a talk page of one who attack you with very aggreesive tone. This page has been deleted, and please be more calm next time. Pavlov2 (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok I will take care next time :) Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Kashmir Files shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please don't engaged in Edit war! OR you will be banned! Pavlov2 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamjeed Ahmed, your edit goes against the consensus reached here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Drama_Film_to_Historical_Drama

As such, might I request that you follow consensus, or revert your edit. Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You had added 'historical fiction' as the genre, which isn't supported by the cited source. The cited source calls it a "drama". The cited source is reliable and have expertise in the field. I have reverted your edit. You can restore the text, if you find a strong reliable source to back it. Until then, please refrain from adding it. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tamjeed Ahmed,

Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:

• Useful scripts you can install to make responding easier,
• templates to use and, of course:
• the question forum itself.

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.

Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article and content you added was original research and no evidence or primary source was provided by the author in the opinion piece. I am willing to discuss further if you have questions.

Good luck 🤞 VediKboy (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Delhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Fort.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned you once. I am warning you once again. Please don't attempt a subterfuge of WP rules. Open a thread on the talk page, propose something there, and let a discussion proceed until a new consensus emerges, or does not. Pinging administrator @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But will you please clarify why are you reverting my other edits too? I added the information about the mayor and dy. mayor, but you removed it why? And why did you removed the image of people celebrating Eid in Jama Masjid? It is one of the most popular festivals of Delhi. Why did you remove it too? Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring these issues up on Talk:Delhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we need to discuss about everything on the talk page when there is no doubt and controversy in an edit. Information about the mayor is necessary and adding a picture of people celebrating a festival will only promote and celebrate the diversity of the city. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GA instructions begin: "Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article and be familiar with its subject and cited sources. Reviewers have the discretion to remove any drive-by nominations they come across." You currently seem to have edited the article once, just after nominating it. Any reason why I should not revert your nom? Have you any previous experiences at GA? Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Honestly, I don't have any previous experience at GA but genuinely Taj Mahal should be a

Good Article. That's why I nominated it. Also, I don't think that page need many edits, but I will surely add more contributions to it in future. Thanks! Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not terribly convincing. Have you consulted the two main editors in recent years, as you are supposed to do? They are User:The Herald and User:Nemonoman. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am taking my request back for now. Will do it in future when I meet the criteria. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the ping, and for the GAN. But the article is not in a great shape. It was in my to do list, but I haven't got enough time to give it a go for GA. I'd suggest to withdraw the nomination, and practice more editing on other articles and get yourself familiarize with the GA requirements. I appreciate the effort, but this nomination will probably go down as a quick fail. It needs a lot of work. As a former FAC and a delisted GA, with over a million views and 800+ watchers, the article is definitely worth a GA at least, but it ain't ready. So, please expand and edit the article before nominating. Thank you and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! As I said earlier, I will surely try to do it in future. Thank you. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamjeed Ahmed:

Your suggestion is a great compliment to the editors who made this page so much better over the years. But I'm with @The Herald: It's not GA-ready at the moment.

I don't wikiedit much anymore -- battled scarred from too many edit wars with determined misinformation trolls, so I'm out of the game. Right now, the article is a PGA (Pretty Good Article). In current form, however, it would not make it through a GA review.

That said, if you want to do some fixes and have the energy and determination, nominate it, and address the many issues other editors will bring up. In many ways, that's an easier task then trying to clean up everything in the dark. Let the GA review illuminate the problems, then work to fix them.

I may be able to help a bit, if you want.

Nemonoman (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman Johnbod I kinda forgot about this conversation. Currently, me and DreamRimmer are trying to bring it up to GA. Majority of the fixes are done and minor ce and cleanup is left. If any of you are interested, please drop by and help out. Thanks and happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't get it. US has literally attacked a belligerent of the other side, that clearly makes them the opposing belligerent. Isn't it common sense? Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just regarding this, you should be aware that the Arab-Israeli conflict is under 1RR. You made two reverts in regards to this:

1. 12:18, 1 January 2024
2. 12:50, 1 January 2024

I have already reverted the second one, but please be careful not to violate 1RR in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a

 → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks!

Oh! I am really sorry for leaving it blank! Will make sure to fill it in future. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]