![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hello, Suthasianhistorian8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>
, copy the whole thing).==References== {{Reflist}}
Hi. Discussions on talk pages are often archived and these are usually searchable. FYI. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to give you the heads up that I've had to remove the request you placed at requested moves because unfortunately you put it in the wrong place and it wasn't signed. You're welcome to place a request again, but may sure you copy the model line and put it in the section with all the other requests, instead of replacing the model line with your request. You can recover the text you wrote from the page's history, so you don't need to type it all again. Let me know if you need help. Dr. Vogel ( talk) 12:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Special:Diff/1056085642 is where an edit summary would have been helpful.
Hemanthah (
talk)
17:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Suthasianhistorian8! Your additions to
Taliban have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the
public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a
suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see
Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid
copyright and
plagiarism issues.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa ( talk) 16:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.
-- RegentsPark ( comment) 16:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked you for two weeks based on your report at WP:ANEW against another user for edit-warring at Singh. Not only were you edit-warring, but in early November of this year, after I had blocked you for edit-warring at another article, you promised never to edit-war but to always seek consensus through the usual methods of dispute resolution. In addition, at ANEW you attacked the other user, accusing them of vandalism and bad English. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Bold text== Blocked for sockpuppetry ==
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
GeneralNotability (
talk)
20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Southasianhistorian8 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Note- originally posted on IIBxtrerII page- removed from there and posted here upon reading that the unblock request must come from the "master account", and will no longer use that account. I'm sorry for using multiple accounts, I promise to only stick to one account now, this account or whatever else account you want me to. Just one account. I definitely think I deserve to be unblocked as I have only made positive, constructive edits to the encyclopedia, I've used the talk page, used relevant dispute resolution noticeboards [1], reverted vandalism, added content sourced through incredibly high quality sources (the vast majority of the content I add is backed up by sources such as OUP, Cambridge University, Brill, Routledge). Any can go through my edits and see the content I've added and where it's sourced from. I've cleaned up hundreds of pages, and made a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Out of the hundreds of edits I've made, the vast majority of them improved the encyclopedia, was an addition of well sourced content or removal of unsourced information, a negligible amount were infractions made against my better judgment, and none were disruptive. Over the past 6 months (December- end of May), apart from 2 incidents, one for adding self published content where I was indeed in error, and the discussion with admin Doug Weller ended very amicably- [2] and edit warring on Vaisakhi (see above, however the reverting edits were blatant vandalism- [3] and [4]), no admin has voiced concerns about my editing or the content I've added or removed or any of my editing practices. I've also read up on the Wiki policy on sockpuppetry and I will abide by it forever. Suthasianhistorian8 ( talk) 02:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You can take the standard offer, preferably after showing us constructive edits on another project for six months. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 16:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
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.
GeneralNotability Please assume AGF and provide me leniency similar to /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Kelownatopdog who was blocked for one week for sockpuppetry (his account posted on my talk page which is how I know). Suthasianhistorian8 ( talk) 02:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Southasianhistorian8 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It's been 6 months since my block and I am appealing for an unblock as per the conditions of the standard offer. I've only edited the Simple Wikipedia project occasionally in the past 6 months. I was blocked for sock puppetry during the months of Dec 2021- May 2022. I admit I made a blunder and I apologize for violating Wikipedia's rules. The reason I used different accounts simultaneously was because I was being targeted relentlessly by WorldWikiAuthorOriginal/HaughtonBrit's sockpuppet MehmoodS [9] who during the entirety of my account's duration was constantly goading me and many other users into time consuming and frivolous arguments. He constantly and knowingly ignored and disregarded basic Wikipedia rules (copyvio, discerning between primary sources vs secondary sources, edit warring, discerning between reliable and unreliable sources, canvassing, the proper use of dispute resolution noticeboards etc) in an attempt to preponderately push his version of an article and push others off the platform. In fact, he is continuing to do so [10] and has been doing so for the past 2 years and even went as far as to impersonate an admin that blocked his WorldWiki account. The use of my different accounts was to avoid frivolous conflicts with this user. I certainly have committed violations myself and am not claiming to be perfect, during my first two months here (Sept-Dec 2021), I definitely had issues with my personal conduct and had a tendency to be snide to editors who challenged my version of a page. I sincerely apologize for that and I will apologize to every user whom I affronted. I look back at some of my lash outs during that period and am ashamed of my behavior and have done some serious self introspection during the past 6 months. A significant contributor to that was being goaded into frivolous conflicts and being targeted by WorldWikiAuthor's sock which impeded my judgment. I recognize that disputes and challenges on certain Wikipedia pages will be inevitable and the only way to deal with it is to respectfully present your views respectfully on the article's talk page to come to an agreement with the other party and the use of outside meditation/opinions and noticeboards. During the Dec 2021-May 2022 time period, while I was using socks, the quality of my edits had significantly improved, and the vast majority of the content I added was impeccably sourced ( ~95% of the content I added was sourced through university books and articles) , I significantly toned down my hostility, and used the talk page of articles and relevant DR noticeboards (even with HB's sock) to arrive at a consensus. In fact, no one apart from WorldWiki/Haughton Brit's sock and some editors on the page Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus had any issue with my hundreds of edits. After an editor correctly pointed out in the talk page that my edits on the page Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus had some issues, I immediately reverted it and there were no further issues. No one, no admin or regular editor apart from HB's sock had any issue with my edits nor did anyone complain about me or my hundreds of edits during that time period, and my edits significantly improved numerous, numerous pages. I plan on apologizing to every editor whom I affronted during my first 2 months here, abiding by a personal 1RR (1 revert rule) policy where if anyone reverts my edit, to immediately present my point of view/point out any issues on the talk pages/outside mediation/resolution noticeboards rather than reverting, adding, deleting content until a consensus is reached, and if a similar situation arises where I feel like I'm being targeted or harassed by another editor, to patiently and respectfully discuss with them on the talk pages of articles regardless of how uncomfortable it may get, rather than the use of subterfuge and socks. Suthasianhistorian8 ( talk) 00:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser data shows no evidence of block evasion. Good. But your unblock request blames your actions largely on the actions of another editor. Please review WP:GAB and rewrite your request focusing only on your own actions. Yamla ( talk) 11:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
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.
Southasianhistorian8 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It's been 6 months since my block and I am appealing for an unblock as per the conditions of the standard offer. I've only edited the Simple Wikipedia project occasionally in the past 6 months. I was blocked for sock puppetry which I did during the months of Dec 2021- May 2022. I admit I made a blunder and I apologize for violating Wikipedia's rules. The reason for my use of sockpuppets was to avoid and pre-empt time consuming conflicts with a particular editor. I recognize that conflicts and disputes will be inevitable on certain Wikipedia articles, and that the only way to deal with it is by respectfully presenting your views/point out any issues on the talk page, consider any disputing editors' arguments and concerns, and to arrive at a consensus with them even if it may be an arduous and time consuming process. During my first two months here (September-December 2021), I definitely had issues with my personal conduct and temperament. I had a tendency to be snide to other editors who challenged my version of an article and was resistant to valid concerns regarding content disputes and my handling of dispute resolutions. I look back at my behavior during this period and am ashamed of lashing out at other editors, I've done some serious self introspection during the past six months and I'm very certain that my behaviour during this period will remain a thing of the past. During Dec 2021- May 2022, while I was using socks to avoid a particular editor as much as possible, the quality of my edits had significantly improved, and the vast majority of the content I added was impeccably sourced ( ~95% of the content I added was sourced through university books and articles) , I significantly toned down my hostility, and used the talk page of articles and relevant DR noticeboards to arrive at a consensus. Apart from one regular editor, and 2 minor incidents which were resolved amicably, where some editors correctly pointed out issues in my edits whereafter I reverted them and no further escalations occurred, no one had complained about my personal conduct, handling of disputes, or the quality of my edits. I believe I significantly improved numerous articles during this period. I plan on apologizing to every editor whom I affronted during my first 2 months here, abiding by a personal 1RR (1 revert rule) policy where if anyone reverts my edit, to immediately present my point of view/point out any issues on the talk page and use outside mediation/resolution noticeboards if necessary rather than reverting, adding or deleting content until a consensus is reached. If a similar situation arises where I feel like I'm being unfairly targeted by another editor, I plan to patiently and respectfully discuss with them on the talk pages of articles regardless of how uncomfortable it may get, rather than the use of subterfuge or socks. Edit: I am asking to be unblocked as per WP:LASTCHANCE or an conditional unblock if admins deem it necessary. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:17 pm, 30 November 2022, Wednesday (29 days ago) (UTC−6)
Accept reason:
Accepting this request. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Suthasianhistorian8 ( talk) 18:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
You emailed me to ask about the status of your unblock request. I can't review it as I have already declined a prior request. The fact that nobody else has ruled already means that your request is not sufficiently convincing. You can either wait (very, very many unblock requests have to wait substantially longer than five days) or you can choose to rewrite it. Either way is your decision. -- Yamla ( talk) 11:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Victoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Hall. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I can't assist you with this as I'm not an administrator or a checkuser. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases and WP:CheckUser#Contacting a checkuser if you wish to pursue this further. Spicy ( talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |