User talk:KashanAbbas

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles 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. Ibadism is not, in fact, a direct subcat of Category:Islamic branches.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 20:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand. KashanAbbas (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas Forces. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Adakiko (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I have now added sources to Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas Forces and I admit my mistake. KashanAbbas (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Mohafiz (vehicle), may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will change some stuff. KashanAbbas (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Liwa Fatemiyoun has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. KashanAbbas (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've tried to rephrase what I wrote. Could you see if it still violates wikipedia's copyright laws, cause I don't want to get banned. KashanAbbas (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sarkha, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that even if there is a source for that flag, it would be outside the scope of the Sarkha article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my mistake. KashanAbbas (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Houthis, you may be blocked from editing. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. KashanAbbas (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your initial message. So sorry. KashanAbbas (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.