User talk:Catherine0007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catherine here to help out deserving people to be recognised on wikipedia!!!Catherine0007 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine0007, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Catherine0007! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rani Hazarika (September 1)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CAPTAIN RAJU was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tanveer Ghazi (September 1)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CAPTAIN RAJU was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ali Peter John[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 Ali Peter John, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. ... discospinster talk 00:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kabul Bukhari (October 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This article is too short to publish. Please add more details which show how he meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
MurielMary (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Asim Riaz for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Asim Riaz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asim Riaz 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. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Karan Singh Randhawa for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karan Singh Randhawa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karan Singh Randhawa 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. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Altamash Faridi for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Altamash Faridi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altamash Faridi 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. Meeanaya (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I know why I am disabled to create any new articles user:Alison user:AGK user:Gorillawarfare please intervene to help me out.

Looking forward to hear from my above check user’s and arbitrators Catherine0007 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine0007[edit]

I believe I am not been heard even after requesting to honourable check users and arbitrators to unfreeze my account. CheckUserAdminsArbitrators Catherine0007 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2019 (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).

Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am accused as Sockpuppet of some unknown user with out any legitimate reason. Catherine0007 (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui 雲水 14:14, 31 October 2019 (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).

Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear (@Yunshui:) As you know (@Darkwind:) has blocked me and I request you both with this reason that I am an independent and individual content creator who loves to create content on different subject which include deserving artists and people who have made a name for themselves and are a source of inspiration. I am no way affiliated to any username or organisations. And hence I just wanted to put it on record and writing that anyone who has been the reason for blocking my account, isn’t anyway associated with me. I am based out of Mumbai and my works and content has been proof of what i stand for. And I have spent a lot of time and efforts to create content for people who value from this account. It is therefore unreasonable to block me for any reasons whatsoever. I have maintained integrity, and Wiki policies while creating content. It would be appreciable if my account is restored ASAPCatherine0007 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the fact you created promotional articles about the same people (yes, plural) as the blocked sockpuppets. MER-C 14:09, 12 November 2019 (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).

Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear (@MER-C:) the moment I got to know I have created pages which were already created by blocked user in past, I deleted them soon after I got notified by a very active Wikipedian user:GSS. Believe me Someone who has always worked as per Wikipedia guidelines (general rule) how could a same person perform so illogically then be so irresponsible towards Wikipedia to create something for someone which could in return hit his or her user ID. being so honest I am requesting your good self to give me a chance to prove my self that I am not at all associated with any blocked user. Trust my words & have little faith in me. I love contributing for Wikipedia it’s even a different feeling when I see my content reflected in google. But, now from few days you guys have left me in a different emotional state of my life. . . it feels like someone has snatched a very precious thing of a great value from my life. Please and please give me one chance to be part of wiki family! With huge respect I assure you that in future you will have regret that you had arraigned and blocked a wrong person & treated him/her so carelessly.Catherine0007 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, Wikipedia is not therapy and there's no doubt about the sockpuppetry here. Yamla (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2019 (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.

Unblock Request[edit]

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).

Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Yamla I understand that wiki isn’t a therapy platform. But wouldn’t blocking a genuine user be wrong. I would Request you to please figure out a way to restore my account. So that I can contribute in content design as much I can.

I have gone through all multiple accounts of user:Farooqahmadbhat . . but, I can just tell you it’s time that he/she should be unfrocked rather than putting me in block list . . . I am really surprised how’s that user operating so many accounts. For me this users moral sense of what’s right and what’s wrong is totally gone . . Now I feel no matter if you don’t want to unblock my account even after so many unblock requests I will be highly indebted if you can just disassociate my account from this shameless user:Farooqahmadbhat. Catherine0007 (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Catherine0007 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be claiming that it's totally a coincidence that you created multiple drafts that had previously been created by the same sockpuppeteer. You cannot seriously expect us to believe that. Huon (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2019 (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).

Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Apart from all these unnecessarily interrogations with these baseless allegations & assertions above Can I please have a chance to get back to my work. I have been so humbly waiting for unblock for many weeks and days now, even after raising unblock request with all the possible genuine reasoning it seems everything is despairing, incompetent & hopeless Catherine0007 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) You have the strangest idea of what "humbly" means. I see no humility: just the opposite. (2) Did you really, really, think that accusing the administrators of incompetence was a good way to encourage one of them to accept your request for an unblock? (3) As far as the sockpuppetry goes, one of the following three situations must apply: you are trolling, you think we are completely stupid, or you are completely stupid. Rarely have I seen a persistent sockpuppeteer who makes is so glaringly obvious what they are doing. (4) Even if we ignore the blatant sockpuppetry, your spam is not welcome here. (5) Please stop wasting your own time and ours by creating sockpuppet accounts, which you know full well will be blocked, and creating new pages which you know full well will be deleted. It is difficult to believe you can't find something more useful to do with your time, and certainly we could use the time on constructive work for the encyclopaedia, instead of wasting our time dealing with your crap; that means that you actually cause damage to other parts of the encyclopaedia that you never touch yourself. (6) I shall remove your talk page access. If I see any more of your sockpuppets I shall do the same to them immediately, without waiting for you to waste more administrator time with your totally absurd unblock requests. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 22:05, 8 December 2019 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catherine0007&oldid=929887322"