User talk:Zuck28

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

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Zuck28, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

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  Conversation 12:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brand post[edit]

What does "brand post" mean? Geniac (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2023 (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[edit]

Information icon 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]
That's definitely an important concern you have. I see User:Fylindfotberserk has replaced it with a different source that appears to support the information. This is not an topic with which I'm familiar. Do you have any reference for where else he studied instead? DMacks (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally it makes sense now. Someone updated it to “He was enrolled in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, but took official sitting in Delhi College of Arts and Commerce” Zuck28 (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socal-media link cleanup[edit]

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.
(~~~~) Zuck28 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick fix! DMacks (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying Description of Islamic Scholars in Lead Sentences[edit]

Dear @Aoidh

I am writing to request a review and potential unblock of my Wikipedia account. My account was recently blocked due to a content dispute, and I believe there has been a misunderstanding that I would like to address.

The specific issue revolves around the content on the page for Ashraf Ali Thanwi.

“was a late-nineteenth and twentieth-century SunniMuslim scholar, jurist, thinker, reformist “

It is crucial to highlight the specific school of thought and movement associated with this individual, as there are multiple movements within this denomination . It's worth noting that the Deobandi movement, established in 1866, is not the original form of this denomination. In comparison, the broader denomination of Sunni is historically more significant.

I identified content that I believed to be biased, unsourced, and potentially confusing, particularly in comparison to the content related to Muhammad Shafi Deobandi .

“was a Pakistani Sunni Islamic scholar of the Deobandi school of Islamic thought. “ (this approach is better and neutral)

@TheAafi your suggestions about this issue are important.

I attempted to engage in a constructive dialogue with the user Owais al Qarni to address these concerns, as I am committed to contributing to Wikipedia in a manner that upholds its standards of neutrality and verifiability.

Despite my efforts to engage in discussion and provide rationale for my proposed changes, I was unable to reach a resolution with the other user. I firmly believe that my intention was purely constructive and aimed at addressing bias and sourcing issues within the content.

According to exemption no. 7 listed on WP:EW, which states, "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's BLP Policy," I recognize that it was my mistake not to report it directly to the BLP notice board due to my haste and lack of knowledge on the correct procedure.

I kindly request the opportunity to engage in a civil and productive discussion with other contributors to address the concerns I have raised. I am open to any guidance or mediation that the Wikipedia administrators may deem necessary to facilitate this process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I am available to provide any additional information that may be helpful for the review of my account status.

Sincerely, Zuck28 (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)|[reply]

You should only have one active unblock request open at a time. When you say I attempted to engage in a constructive dialogue with the user Owais al Qarni to address these concerns I'm assuming you mean through edit summaries, and as stated above, edit summaries are not the same as an attempt at discussion. If you did make an attempt to discuss on a talk page a link to that discussion would be helpful. As for the WP:3RRNO #7, it is important to note that this exception applies to subjects that are BLPs (biographies of living persons), and Ashraf Ali Thanwi died over 80 years ago, and is not a biography of a living person nor are the specific edits about a living person. For these reasons I do not think unblocking you is beneficial, as this unblock request does not demonstrate an understanding of the reasons that led to the block nor does it indicate that such issues would not continue if unblocked. - Aoidh (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I inadvertently removed the previous unblock request, as per your request. Regarding the discussion, I did create a discussion topic on the user's talk page. However, it seems to have disappeared, and I am unable to locate a link to it. I suspect that it may have been removed by the user.
I believe the archive link pertaining to the discussion topic can be found here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1204411032
Thanks
Zuck28 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link of the section i added to their talk page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Owais_Al_Qarni&oldid=1204411032 Zuck28 (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is not an attempt at discussion and certainly doesn't seem like an attempt to engage in a constructive dialogue, it's essentially a hand-written warning about reverting rather than any attempt to start a dialogue on the content of the dispute itself. - Aoidh (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that to me. I appreciate your guidance, and I will certainly keep this in mind and follow your suggestion. I kindly request the unblocking of my account so that I can resume editing other issues on Wikipedia in accordance with the guidelines.
Additionally, I would like to request the contributor community to address the issue I have raised regarding the clarity of denominations, movements, and schools of thought on articles about religious scholars, to uphold neutrality and ensure clarity. Zuck28 (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28: I agree with @Aoidh as they say. This issue has also less to do with neutrality than with how it has to do with Islamic scholars being described in the lede sentences. In my opinion, MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is precise, and per se, this issue relates to the context, "Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable". Adherence to any movement or school of thought, which as a matter of fact, Deobandism is not a school of thought, rather a movement, should be limited to be used on the infoboxes only because, for instance, Deobandism did not make Thanwi notable but it was his activity majorly with Sufism and reform. The lede should be contextual to nationality, their field of activity i.e. being a jurist or an author, or a Sufi master or else, or perhaps a separate sentence that the person adhered to so and so movement within Sunni/Shia denominations. Starting the opening as "Dash Dash was a Barelwi scholar or a Deobandi scholar", appears to me as a cringe. Let's just have it as "Islamic scholar" and move everything else into infoboxes. I'd however want @Iskandar323, @Vice regent and @Apaugasma, offer their insights. ─ Aafī (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insight, @TheAafi. I agree with your suggestion to have the opening as "Islamic scholar" and move additional details into infoboxes. If the statement "Dash Dash was a Barelwi scholar or a Deobandi scholar" appears cringe-worthy, it follows that it would be equally inappropriate to simply state "Dash Dash was a Sunni scholar or a Shia scholar.” Zuck28 (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi @Iskandar323 @Vice regent @Apaugasma
In my view, if the broader denomination is referenced, it's crucial to include the specific movement, sect, or school of thought to prevent confusion. Otherwise, it might be preferable to start with "Islamic Scholar" and address the denomination and movement in separate sentences or reserve this information solely for the infobox. Zuck28 (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is widely acknowledged by scholars and the majority of Muslims who identify themselves solely as Sunni without aligning with subsequent movements, such as Barelvi or Deobandi. In instances where an individual is a prominent figure within one of these later movements, it is not accurate to simply label them as "Sunni". It is more precise to specify their affiliation, describing them as a scholar of the Deobandi movement of Islam, for example, or as a Sunni scholar of the Barelvi school of thought. This distinction helps prevent confusion with those scholars who identify exclusively with the Sunni denomination without subscribing to any modern sects or movements. The standalone term "Sunni Scholar/Theologian/Saint/Poet" should be reserved for individuals who only identify with Sunni Islam, not for those affiliated with movements such as Deobandi, Salafi, Wahhabi, Ahle Hadith, Bohra, or Barelvi.
The same principle applies to Shia scholars. While many scholars are broadly recognized as Shia, without further distinction, it's important to specify their particular branch when relevant, such as Isna Ashari (Twelver), Zaidi, Ismaili, Dawoodi, or Alawite (Nusseri). Although the majority of Shias are Twelvers, and it might seem acceptable to refer to them simply as "Shia scholars", it is not suitable to do so for an Alawite (Nusseri) scholar without specifying their specific branch.
For the Ahmadiyya scholars, it is also crucial to be explicit and not refer to them merely as Muslim or Sunni, but to clearly state their affiliation with the Ahmadiyya community, even if the term Muslim is employed.
If it is not appropriate to mention the movement in the opening line of a text, solely due to its presence in the infobox or elsewhere, then the denomination should be omitted as well. It is preferable to introduce an individual simply as an Islamic scholar and detail their denominations and movements in the infobox or a separate section.
There is a notable example regarding mainstream Sunnis who do not affiliate themselves with any particular movement, as explained in certain articles. This group faces criticism from both Deobandi and Barelvi movements based on their interpretations of Islam. For instance, a significant number of North Indian Muslims who are not Shia participate in Muharram processions, displaying Taziyas, a practice that Deobandi and Barelvi movements prohibit. These individuals are Sunnis unaffiliated with any modern movements.
In summary, using "Sunni" as a term without specifying the movement for a scholar affiliated with a particular movement is not appropriate, especially in the case of Indian scholars. It is essential to either add the denomination with the movement (if any) or refrain from mentioning it in the opening and instead cover denominations and movements comprehensively elsewhere in the text or in an infobox. Zuck28 (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a discussion at Talk:Ashraf Ali Thanwi#Lead sentence, as either Zuck28 or Owais Al Qarni should have done after the first revert or two (not seven [2][3][4][5][6][7][8], for shame!).
In the future, please don't ping me for silly disputes which haven't even been discussed on an article talk page in the first place. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is another person called Lalnunmawia[edit]

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]
https://www.indiatvnews.com/mizoram/mizoram-assembly-election-2023-lalnunmawia-chuaungo-former-chief-secretary-inducted-congress-vp-gujarat-cadre-ias-officer-2023-09-04-890795
https://hubnetwork.in/who-is-lalnunmawia-chuaungo-former-mizoram-chief-secretary-to-contest-assembly-polls-on-cong-ticket/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/former-gujarat-ias-officer-lalnunmawia-chuaungo-loses-mizoram-assembly-election-on-congress-ticket/articleshow/105740652.cms
https://www.myneta.info/Mizoram2023/candidate.php?candidate_id=112
https://www.eastmojo.com/mizoram/2023/09/04/mizoram-former-chief-secretary-lalnunmawia-chuaungo-appointed-congress-vp/
https://northeastlivetv.com/topnews/cic-lalnunmawia-chuaungo-resigns-likely-to-contest-coming-assembly-polls-on-cong-ticket/
Just remember one of these sources may have misinfomation ThDON (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, 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/Aaajit22700. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Aaajit22700 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aaajit22700. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Izno (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review of Indefinite Block on My Wikipedia Account[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).

Zuck28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Administrators, I am writing to address the indefinite block that has been imposed on my Wikipedia account. I want to emphasize that I am not a sockpuppet, nor am I engaging in the abuse of multiple accounts. The block appears to be based on a misunderstanding, and I believe it stems from errors I made while attempting to upload pictures on Wikimedia Commons. I understand that these mistakes may have been perceived as a pattern similar to that of blocked users, leading to the accusation of being a sockpuppet account. The news of this block has been deeply heartbreaking and disheartening for me, especially as I have been dedicating my vacation time to improving Wikipedia articles, which I believed I could significantly enhance. I have been actively learning new aspects of Wikipedia, such as image uploading, with the goal of contributing constructively to the platform. I fully acknowledge my mistakes in the process of uploading images and my initial lack of understanding regarding Wikimedia licensing. I sincerely apologize for any disruption caused by my actions. I want to reaffirm that I have only used the Zuck28 account on Wikipedia and have not been involved in any form of abuse or misconduct. I respectfully urge the Wikipedia administrators to assume good faith and kindly reconsider the indefinite block on my account. I trust in the wisdom and expertise of the administrators and believe that upon review, it will become evident that I am not a sockpuppet. Moreover, I would like to inform you that I have gained a better understanding of the licensing process and have uploaded an image on Wikimedia Commons:(redacted inappropriate for user space image.) I kindly request a review of the licensing for this image. I appreciate your attention to this matter and hope for a fair and just resolution. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Zuck28 (talk) 2:24 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:58, 15 February 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.

Requesting review of Block on My Account[edit]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Zuck28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Request reason:

Dear Administrators,

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.

Sincerely,

Zuck28 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Request reason: Dear Administrators, 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. Sincerely, [[User:Zuck28|Zuck28]] ([[User talk:Zuck28#top|talk]]) 13:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Request reason: Dear Administrators, 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. Sincerely, [[User:Zuck28|Zuck28]] ([[User talk:Zuck28#top|talk]]) 13:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Request reason: Dear Administrators, 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. Sincerely, [[User:Zuck28|Zuck28]] ([[User talk:Zuck28#top|talk]]) 13:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Zuck28 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: This has gone unactioned for a couple of weeks. OK to unblock?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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.
Thank you.
Zuck28 (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why were you blocked? Jay 💬 06:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Zuck28 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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.
Zuck28 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
Dear @Izno , @Jay
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.)
Thanks
Zuck28 (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Sure,I am waiting for the final decision. It’s been a long time, kindly finalised this as soon as possible. Zuck28 (talk) 15:30, 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.
thanks
Zuck28 (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Jay
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.
Thank you.
Zuck28 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
I am still waiting for the final decision. Zuck28 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 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?
@Zuck28: How is that you uploaded the files 10 minutes after the deletion notice at Aaajit22700's talk page? Jay 💬 08:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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?
Zuck28 (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not here to contribute in a constructive manner. Highly recommend this user not to be unblocked. Melvin Hudson (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please give more details. I see that you started editing Wikipedia from today. Jay 💬 09:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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.
Zuck28 (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mika Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian embassy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Thanks,
Zuck28 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from New Delhi Municipal Council. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. MP1999 ❯❯❯ Talk 16:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zuck28&oldid=1217746610"