User talk:Aruwaz

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Aruwaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as LUCKNOW Society, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Vivvt (Talk) 04:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of LUCKNOW Society[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello. A tag has been placed on LUCKNOW Society 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 organization or company, 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. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Lucknow Observer[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Lucknow Observer, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamim A. Aarzoo without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. It says to not modify the page -- that means no removing content, too. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamim A. Aarzoo, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MelbourneStar yes i removed some content from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamim A. Aarzoo its a user privacy issue you can not defame any person or organisation like this.

Wikipedia is not governed by the laws of India. Do not remove content again. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamim A. Aarzoo, you may be blocked from editing. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MelbourneStar and what about "The Privacy Act of 1974" - United States federal law, /?

Your recent edits to User talk:Widr could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MelbourneStar : By the way you are threatening me. I am talking about legal rights and i know my rights very well. --Aruwaz (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

Can you look at the AFD now and tell me if what I did satisfied your concerns? It is blanked with a message that says the article was deleted. -- GB fan 12:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies[edit]

Hi Aruwaz,

I'd like to apologise to you for today's discourse between the two of us. I genuinely thought that your removal of content on that closed discussion page, was not permitted. I was wrong, and so I am sorry for any troubles or any grief I may have put you through. I'm not one to make mistakes on a regular basis, especially such as this one, but I believe in owning up to it. GB fan has blanked the page in question, as a courtesy to your requests – I hope that suffices.

Again, I'm very sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok MelbourneStar and thanks GB fan for your cooperation and support :)--Aruwaz (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Iaarzoo (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Seems you guys are either completely misinterpreted or biased when it comes to deletion and terming ‘sockpuppet’. Apparently Wikipedia is not some heavenly revelation or it’s not that your policies are all-knowing and your parameters may not be the ultimate gauge to determine the authenticity and utility of the page. I am not here to challenge your policies.

The blocking of pages Lucknow Society and The Lucknow Observer cannot be justified as these initiatives deal with public interest and various aspects related to the culture and history of the city. Your concerns on the contents matching the respective websites can be addressed as per your policy. However, the turn of things from various administrators did not try to understand the basic queries raised and they were given to deviate from the subject.

Let us not call it a threat because it is a matter of public interest related to information and all the good work pertaining to the welfare of a city. Let us not be biased in the name of policy. Yes I agree that individual page may not fall in line with your policy but you cannot make it public once the page is deleted. It breaches the user privacy under Indian laws and your argument that Wikipedia does not follow India laws fall flat because you have a representation here which is bound to abide by the laws of the land.

Deletion of Lucknow Society and The Lucknow Observer is highly objectionable and we urge to reconsider the decision. We request you to reinstate the status where the whole discussion was closed by user GB fan. We anticipate that issue is resolved amicably. Aruwaz (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An unblock request is not the place to argue over the merits of deleted articles. You need to address the reason you are blocked, and if you are unblocked you can then contest the deletion of the articles. (By the way, who is "We"? Wikipedia user accounts are only for single individuals) - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 15 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The imposed allegation of being sockpuppet is baseless as Lucknow Society has a follower base of more than 300 thousand people and I am one of them. As far 'We' is concerned, it was written assuming that I am contesting on behalf of co-followers of the Society. Aruwaz (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For one thing, it is perfectly clear that this account is a sockpuppet. However, even if we were to ignore that, this account has done no constructive editing whatever, its only actions being disruptive editing of various kinds, including re-creating pages contrary to consensus in a discussion, removing contents from a discussion making legal threats (based, incidentally, on a bizarre interpretation of law). Nothing you say suggests that if unblocked you will suddenly become a productive and constructive contributor to the encyclopaedia, so unblocking would not benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 15 September 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.

Dear JamesBWatson So basically you guys are the advocates, judges and the court, hence you have chosen to draw curtains on explanations and negotiations. If you think that legalities are bizarre then I am being provoked to have no option but to take the legal route. Wikipedia cannot be God, its the user. --Aruwaz (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that "legalities are bizarre", I said that your interpretation of the law is bizarre. However, I am not a lawyer, and I am willing to reconsider the matter if you can explain why the content you removed is covered by the Privacy (Protection) Act, 2013. To do that you will need to explain (1) why the information should be regarded as personal data, (2) why the personal data applies to you, granted that it referred to the owner of a different Wikipedia account, and you have stated that the "Aruwaz" account is not a sockpuppet, which means that you are not the person it referred to, (3) why the Privacy (Protection) Act, 2013 affects data stored on servers in the United States. (However, even if you can provide that information, I don't see how it can constitute defamation, as you suggested.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]