Hello, Abbasizaibi, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Waqar Raaj, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest
• FAQ for Organizations

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• 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! LL212W (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Waqar Raaj requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. LL212W (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sofia Kaif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. LL212W (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Muskan jay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. LL212W (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. LL212W (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Athar & Bilal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. LL212W (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Humaima Malick, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point [1], I think another block is warranted. Do you want to respond here first? --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User_talk:Ronz#I_am_not_promoting_Soap_or_anything_else. --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, I hope You will be fine when You will receive my message. Today You reviewed one of my edited article and said that "Stop promoting soap as or something like it for Humaima Malic's page. So, I want to clear you that I am not promoting any soap or something like that but as I mentioned there about LUX and the reason for mentioning lux is that she has worked as their model so for reference I mentioned it. And the second thing which I want to clear is that I've got Humaima's personal information by contacting humaima through her manager. The information (old information) of humaima was not authentic there are a lot of false information posted there about humaima malick which can make impact on readers about humaima malick. That's why we (me & humaima) are editing the old article. I hope now you will get my point and will help us out about this problem. Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbasizaibi (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me.

WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. The material was blatantly promotional in content and presentation, which we should expect coming from her manager. Further, WP:BLP requires that material about living persons be attributable to verifiable reliable sources - We can't just assume it that the material is something her manager said. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying dear :) But let me clear you one thing that her manager is not saying anything from himself but Humaima herself is worried about the old information about her which is published on wikipedia, Because it can create some problems for humaima that's why she gave me her original information through her manager. I removed the link of "Lux wikipedia page", which you were saying that I am promoting. Kindly please allow me to publish her new and original information.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbasizaibi (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly please allow me to publish her new and original information. I'm sorry, but you don't appear to understand at all. If you are not going to even attempt to provide sources, you'll just be blocked again. --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide all sources dear :)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia for promotional purposes despite multiple explanations as to why your edits are contrary to policy and a previous block for the same behaviour. The block is of indefinite length, that is you are blocked until you are able to demonstrate to a reviewing admin that you will not continue to add promotional text to articles and that you will abide by our policies and guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Hey, thank you for your message. I don't know why you guys are banning me for promotional purpose while I am not promoting any thing. I just removed the old article of Humaim Malick and then published there her authentic information which she gave to me by via her manager. The old information of humaima was not her actual information and this is the 4th time I am complaining that please publish her new information as the old information of her is not authentic. If you guys need proof then I can also give you proof that she personally sent me her information for wikipedia. Waiting for your honor reply }}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 28 July 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hey, thank you for your message. I don't know why you guys are banning me for promotional purpose while I am not promoting any thing. I just removed the old article of Humaim Malick and then published there her authentic information which she gave to me by via her manager. The old information of humaima was not her actual information and this is the 4th time I am complaining that please publish her new information as the old information of her is not authentic. If you guys need proof then I can also give you proof that she personally sent me her information for wikipedia. Waiting for your honor reply

Decline reason:

Thank you for admitting your conflict of interest. Despite your claim that your edits were not promotional in nature, they very clearly are, and were totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Yamla (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2016 (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.

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akshayzine13, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Saqib (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]