User talk:Mashwani83

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Mashwani83, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GXXF T • C 13:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gesudaraz I, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Mashwanis. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Mashwanis. Jus da fax 09:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2017 (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).

Mashwani83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The edits I have made in Mashwanis article are genuine. I removed some spell mistakes, rephrased some sentences, created some inline links, irrelevant references. I am continuously researching on Mashwani Tribe that's why I am doing frequent changes. I request for unblock and also revert back mashwanis article to my changes

Decline reason:

You were removing sourced content after several warnings not to do so. At the same time you were adding content sourced to a blog (!?) link. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2017 (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.

Your edits at Mashwanis[edit]

Please stop adding the Person infobox to this page. The article is about a tribe, not an individual person, so the Person infobox does not belong. Also, wikipedia is not a repository for irrelevant genealogical material. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mashwani for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mashwani 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/Mashwani 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. IWI (chat) 16:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ssimad. Thank you. IWI (chat) 12:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashwani83 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC) For a couple of years I am managing only one article i.e Mashwani, the article is about our tribe. Some people change this article because of their hate and racism towards our tribe without any references or weak referencing. I used to revert their changes with strong references. I do not have multiple Wikipedia accounts, as it will serve no possible benefit to me. I was once banned in 2017 but at that time I was new to Wikipedia and maybe violated policy unknowingly at that time.[reply]

So you admit you are a banned user? IWI (chat) 14:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you referring to the block above? IWI (chat) 14:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashwani83 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC) thank you for responding. Yes, I am referring to the temporary blockage of my ID in 2017 as can be seen above on this page. But that was because I was new to Wikipedia, and was not aware of the policy, I am still not aware of Wikipedia policy completely, but it does not mean the research I have conducted on Mashwani tribe is unauthentic and has false information. If I violated any policy, you can educate me, but based on that one can not question my research on Mashwani. Research is authentic, I am here to defend it with strong references. I may not be good Wikipedia author because I am unaware of some of the policies, But I am a good researcher and did good enough research on Mashwanis.[reply]

Well the sources are questionable looking at them. I can't access any of them of course. IWI (chat) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashwani83 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC) I would be happy to help with the sources I cited, to further improve my article. Please have a look to references, most of the references are linked to google books, click on them, it will lead you to the particular book on google books, hence showing the authenticity of the source, however because of copyright issue google books will not show you some or all of the contents of the book. I recommend you once again check the references. Regarding your comment i.e. "I can't access any of them (references)", I would suggest you double-check before making such a negative comment. Make sure you do full research at your end. All the references are authentic with correct titles, author names, and years of publishing. The links in references refer to google books, some of the books are available on google books, but because of copyright issues some of them may not be available but you can search them on the web. I encourage you to find and read those books, you are always welcome to point out any misquotes (if you find any) and we will be glad to correct them if found. If you are unable to search books, I have them in soft form, please guide me, how can I share them with you. Thanks[reply]