Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa Conversation12:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It means it’s sponsored PR article. No journalist involved its more like paid press release. Read the disclaimer in the article. Zuck28 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article properly it clearly states in the ending of it. “ Disclaimer: This is a company press release. No HT journalist was involved in the creation of this content.” Zuck28 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now. I had never heard of the term "brand post" before, and that term doesn't appear in the Verifiability policy page. Press releases are specified as an example of self-published sources, so I undid my edit. Geniac (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 2023
Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! However, you should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Gautam Rode. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining this. I will keep this in mind. But I actually believe this information regarding his college name is unverifiable and incorrect. I know he never studied in this college that’s why I removed it. Zuck28 (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely no objection to the general theme of NOSOCIAL. But in several cases, most noticeably [1], you also removed many or all of the category tags. Please check that one and any other pages where your reasonable changes to the 'external links' section might have had this mistake. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to my notice. The category tags were removed by mistake I apologise for this and will check my previous edits & keep this in mind in future.
Lalnunmawia Chuaungo. I am too lazy to create the page but you can create the page. Lalnunmawia Chuaungo has documented some times by indian news. The editor that made your page a redistrict will change his mind because he required it to have more than one entry. and that person makes the page have more than one entry ThDON (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will strive to do my best. If you could share any reference links from reputable secondary sources, including local language media references to establish notability, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Zuck28 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2024 (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).
I acknowledge the reasons for my block and understand the community's concerns regarding my image uploads. I recognize now that my actions, while well-intentioned, did not comply with Wikipedia's strict copyright policies. I regret any disruption my lack of understanding may have caused.
I have taken time to educate myself on Wikipedia's image use policies, copyright guidelines, and the importance of verifiable sourcing. I assure you that I fully grasp the reasons behind my block and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's standards moving forward.
If unblocked, I promise to:
1. Only upload images that I have verified are properly licensed and within Wikimedia Commons guidelines.
2. Not engage in any form of copyright infringement or image misuse.
3. Seek guidance from more experienced editors when unsure about the appropriateness of content or edits.
Furthermore, I will adhere to the policies regarding notability, verifiability, neutrality, content and editing, and avoid behaviors that could lead to suspicions of COI editing, sockpuppetry, or abuse of multiple accounts.
I am eager to return to contributing value to Wikipedia and its sister projects constructively and responsibly. I appreciate the community's willingness to forgive past mistakes and offer a second chance to well-meaning contributors.
Thank you for considering my request for unblocking.
This request was written by an AI(100% certain according to GPTzero). We don't consider AI written requests, because you are blocked, not an AI. We want to hear from you. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2024 (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.
@Deepfriedokra: I don't think either appeal meets the expectations for why the block was issued for this specific account. At least the back half of this specific appeal looks like ChatGPT to boot, and if I squint not very hard the first half does also. The first appeal looks like a plain denial of sockpuppetry which I think beggars belief, as I said at the SPI when I issued the block. Izno (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra I appreciate your feedback on my appeal. I have reflected on my past actions and have dedicated my time to learn Wikipedia's rules and policies. I acknowledge my mistakes and assure you that I am committed to adhering to the guidelines moving forward. Despite being blocked from editing on English Wikipedia for some time now, I have continued to educate myself daily, particularly on topics such as image licensing and content.
I believe that I can contribute positively to the wp, and I assure you that I will not repeat the errors of the past. If you still feel that my previous actions warrant a continued block, I will respect your decision. However, I would be grateful if given the opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia once again.
I was blocked by @Izno because my behavior was seen as possibly using multiple accounts or having a conflict of interest, both of which are serious reasons for being blocked. Initially, I was thought to be a sockpuppet account, but I denied this and there was no confirmation from checkusers. Inzo blocked me because he believed I had committed an offense that warranted a block. I tried to explain everything in my replies, but unfortunately, it didn't seem to make a difference, so I eventually decided to stop trying.
@Izno: By what you said at the SPI .. given the other interactions with the set of editors in this history as well as on Commons, which interactions are you referring to? I understand that you have suspicions, but do you have evidence of UPE/COI? And for which subject - Suresh Shyamlal Gupta? Jay 💬12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used my vacation time to enhance existing Wikipedia articles, including one about Suresh Shyamlal Gupta. However, my edits were mistakenly identified as suspicious activities like sockpuppeting, multiple account abuse, undisclosed paid editing, and conflict of interest. I am confused about how to explain my situation and perspective.
@Jay, the timeline laid out at SPI was sufficiently convincing regarding the topic of Suresh Shyamlal Gupta, particularly the within-minutes reaction to nomination for deletion of files at Commons by uploading new files with license washing. There wasn't particularly strong evidence elsewhere, besides contributions at Draft:Gaby Guha, that indicated UPE/COI. Izno (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was working on that particular article for more than 2 or 3 days in an effort to improve it, so that single edit was not a response to a deletion nomination, but a continuous effort on my part to enhance the article. I was unaware of the deletion nomination until someone informed me on my talk page. Initially, I had very little understanding of Wikimedia licensing and copyright, but now I can assure you that I have learned a great deal about image licensing and have successfully uploaded more than 50 pictures on Commons.
Regarding the Gaby Guha article, I acknowledge that it was during my starting phase when I had limited knowledge and made several mistakes. However, over time, I have learned a lot and improved my understanding of editing Wikipedia. As far as I know, the Gaby Guha article was not published. Recently, I created a new page for Baryl Vanneihsangi, where you can see my improved understanding and efforts to enhance Wikipedia. Zuck28 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: As the block reason is socking, and not UPE/COI, I'll keep Draft:Gaby Guha out of this discussion for now, though I did not get how that draft indicated UPE/COI. Going back to .. given the other interactions with the set of editors in this history as well as on Commons that you stated at the SPI, by interactions I assumed you are talking of Zuck28's interactions with other editors. Which interactions are those?
Regarding Belbury's comment below regarding evidence, it is not clear how many uploads there were, or was there only one. I see that Zuck28 has been updating Suresh Shyamlal Gupta from 10 February, and adding images to it, well before the 13 Feb incident. Jay 💬10:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like my account was wrongfully blocked due to some misunderstandings and suspicions, but now this is clear that there’s no evidence about it, I believe my account should be unblocked and I request again to reconsider the decision.
There is no Socking, No COI/UPE, and even the most significant argument by @Belbury which caused the block to turn out to be not true. (Within minutes of action on commons, later they said it was more than 1 hour.)
10 minutes or 1 hour is not much of a difference. What matters is that Belbury found a connection, and I have asked him for timestamp details of your uploads of 13 February? Alternatively the blocking admin Izno may provide the evidence. Jay 💬07:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno , @Belbury It’s been more than a month since I am blocked due to a suspicious activity. Hereby I request you to kindly take a final review and give a fair decision. I am willing to accept the decision by the experienced editors and administrators. And I pledge to use my rights very carefully if I get unblocked.
Both witnesses have provided their opinions, indicating a lack of concrete evidence regarding the alleged sockpuppetry. It is evident that the decision rests with you. Given the absence of proof, I kindly request to be unblocked.
@Jay, I have no private evidence. If you come to a different conclusion with the data presented at the SPI, and you think the appeal is sufficient, then you are free to act on it. Izno (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury: Can you provide the timestamp details of Zuck28's uploads of 13 February? I see File:Suresh Gupta AICWA.jpg uploaded at 2:04pm UTC. Your notice for deletion was at 12:55pm UTC. It is possible the other uploads have been deleted, and I can't see it in user contributions as I'm not an admin on Commons (but I don't suppose you are either, so you'll have to take help of a Commons admin). How did you find out about the 10 minute spaced upload? Was it from the image addition at Suresh Shyamlal Gupta?
@Jay: I don't remember how I found it, but it looks like I may have misread the timestamps if it was one hour ten between the flagging of one flickrwash and the upload of another. Belbury (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea; perhaps it's just a pure coincidence or a misunderstanding. It's better to cross-check their claim. Even if it's true, it's not intentional, and I was totally unaware. This is not a valid reason because even if they nominated a picture for deletion, how will it affect me or how will I get informed about it?
@Jay, this user has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that they're not here to build an encyclopedia. So their comment should be ignored.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Regrettably, I am unable to make the required edits due to the current blockade on my account. I kindly request that other editors assist in resolving this issue.
@MP1999: Please note that these are not maintenance templates, your revert was not a minor edit even though it was marked as such, and this editor has been blocked since February 15 and cannot use a sandbox. Please ensure that if you are going to add such templates to user talk pages that you use them correctly. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting review of Indefinite Block
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Dear Administrators, It’s been more than 6 months since I was blocked indefinitely on the suspicion of being a sockpuppet. I acknowledge the reasons for my block and understand the community's concerns regarding my activity on Wikipedia. I understand that my actions, while well-intentioned, did not comply with WP copyright policies. I have taken time to understand the image use policies & copyright guidelines. I am committed to following the policies very carefully while editing Wikipedia. I want to promise that I am not using multiple accounts to evade blocks or anything which counts as sock puppetry. I will only upload pics which are properly licensed and comply with guidelines. I have learned all the policies regarding notability, verifiability, neutrality, content and editing, and will avoid behaviours that could lead to suspicions of COI editing or sockpuppetry. Currently, I am on vacation and I eagerly want to contribute to Wikipedia constructively & responsibly. I request the community to forgive past mistakes and grant me a second chance. Thank you Zuck28 (talk) 4:10 am, 20 September 2024, Friday (27 days ago) (UTC−4)
Accept reason:
I'm inclined to accept, largely on the basis of the discussion between Jay, Izno and Belbury above. Please note that, due to the circumstances of both the block and this unblock, any editing that is suggestive of COI/UPE will be met with high scrutiny. For your own well-being, I recommend avoiding UPE-prone topics, such as biographies of living people or creating articles about active organizations. signed, Rosguilltalk15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No CU evidence of recent block evasion or sockpuppetry. However, note the user states "I am on vacation" meaning they are likely not editing from their regular IP address range(es). --Yamla (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Zuck28, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to help us improve coverage of Indian and South Asian women. I see you have already created one biography and look forward to many more. In this connection, you should find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. If you would like others to see your interest in the project, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind message, I am looking forward to create more biographies. I will definitely consult you if I need any assistance.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Cricket League (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
In your earlier revisions to the Rajat Dalal page, it was noted that you had eliminated the text that had appropriate citations and useful facts, referring to it as unsourced stuff.
Instead of adding more templates to the article due of the presence of a terrible source, it is your responsibility as a responsible Wikipedia editor to delete unreliable sources from that page with good reason.
I tried to improve the page by removing unsourced data and unreliable sources but unfortunately, my edits were ignored and reverted that’s why I had to do this.
I respect your beliefs and thoughts, I suggest you participate in the deletion discussion to share your thoughts.
Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here
Tip of the month:
Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.
Thanks for uploading File:Edith Udhardt.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for uploading File:Danish.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.
Thank you for uploading File:Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi.gif. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.
A primary google search indicates that majority of the reliable sources are using the new name “Gurugram” instead of Gurgaon, the term Gurgaon is used only for a small locality in the city now.
Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
