User talk:ShriBalajji

This is ShriBalajji's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance Center (May 17)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:COI.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance Center and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ShriBalajji! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Hindu Shahis has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet 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 sockpuppet, 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. Abecedare (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #73745[edit]

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm ShriBalajji, and I'd want to be unblocked because I didn't breach any wiki rules despite being accused of being a sock and asking his favourite administrator to block me simply because I disagreed with his point of view. Based on my random and prior revisions, someone barred me because they felt I was linked to Hanshangling, who was also blocked.ShriBalajji (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are a number of behavioural similarities between your account and the blocked sockmaster which convince me that you are not being truthful. Spicy (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2023 (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.

Note from blocking admin: This is a case of WP:DUCK (compare with previous account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bensebgli). If needed, any reviewer is welcome to email me for further explanation; I would prefer not to discuss the commonalities on-wiki. Abecedare (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrator,AbecedareFor what reason did you hinder me rapidly without utilizing any specialized examination, check_user tool, or IP area, and for what reason helped you give out to Re Packer & Tracker since he is one-sided towards Rajput position and on the grounds that he returned one alter at the Hindu Shahis line and eliminated obtained content and the unbiased perspective of one of different editors? In addition, he referred to me as a Hanshingling sock, as he is accustomed to referring to other users as sock users without conducting an investigation. You blocked me because it was unfair without seeing his biased reversion and removal of content from sources.