User talk:John Bourker

Welcome![edit]

Hello, John Bourker, 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 Sikh Occupation of Delhi and Red Fort, 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! WikiHelper1 (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sikh Occupation of Delhi and Red Fort[edit]

The article Sikh Occupation of Delhi and Red Fort has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a story book.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WikiHelper1 (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of MS Ahluwalia[edit]

The article MS Ahluwalia has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (MS Ahluwalia) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating MS Ahluwalia, John Bourker!

Wikipedia editor Yashovardhan Dhanania just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The article must have some sources

To reply, leave a comment on Yashovardhan Dhanania's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Yashovardhan (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mohan Singh Ahluwalia (May 6)[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 Chrissymad was:

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.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mohan Singh Ahluwalia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! John Bourker, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MM Ahluwalia, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Cabayi (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of MM Ahluwalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:03, 26 May 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).

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

Request reason:

User talk:Vanjagenije As you claimed that my intention was to harm Wikipedia policy than I honestly wants to make it clear it was not, I even lost my password to someone else and today after getting it recovered today by ten's of requests I made it to the person, I was horrified to see this all. I accept my mistake and honestly apologize for it as I was not really aware of this all. As a student of 9th at that time it was curiosity in mind to use Wikipedia but I did a mistake which I accept. I was not aware of references/making tables etc. as I was new and not having plenty of time was another reason and I requests admins To Help me out . I here apologizes and requests to make my accounts unblocked and I will merge the accounts as they will be visible on each page and delete new ones for sure but please don't be inhumane to me as I commit to not do any further this kind of violation and will improve further and do my best. A Request — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Bourker (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for unblock consideration here. Additionally, as you've been evading your block literally earlier today, you are not eligible for unblock consideration anywhere. You are more likely to end up banned under WP:3X than you are to be unblocked, but if you immediately cease evasion, you have a faint hope of being unblocked under WP:SO. This requires zero edits for at least six months. Yamla (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2018 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

John Bourker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22540 was submitted on Sep 03, 2018 15:04:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of talk page access[edit]

You say "I even lost my password to someone else and today after getting it recovered today by ten's of requests I made it to the person,". This means that your account is compromised, and compromised accounts are never unblocked. Put together with your misleading appeal, here, there is no point in allowing talk page further appeals. I have therefore revoked your talk page access. The best you can do is apply for WP:SO at WP:UTRS in over 6 months time. Just Chilling (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]