User talk:PrfctSam

hi[edit]

hhhj PrfctSam (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alia Bhatt Filmography (December 24)[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 Bilorv 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. 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:

Doesn't look to me like this is too long to be covered at Alia Bhatt. Please note Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It is not acceptable for copyright reasons to copy from pages without saying that (we need to give credit to the volunteers who worked hard on the content). If you still think a list is justified, you could ask at Talk:Alia Bhatt whether others agree.

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:Alia Bhatt Filmography and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alia Bhatt Filmography, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

— Bilorv (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PrfctSam! Having an article 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! — Bilorv (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karishma Sawant (December 27)[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 Dan arndt were:

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 content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails the requirements of WP:NACTOR

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:Karishma Sawant and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Karishma Sawant, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021[edit]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Karishma Sawant. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Moving page to draft space while AFD is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for doing, actually I am new user over here PrfctSam (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that I've made multiple accounts which led me to be a sockpuppet, Even though I didn't have any bad intention, It happened, unfortunately, I clearly understand why I was blocked so I want to start a new chapter of This Account and I am ready to contribute for good. You can delete that account, I promise there won't be any problem from my side, Hope I will get a Second Chance. Thank you. I'm looking forward to your response.

Decline reason:

No chance. If you ever want to be unblocked, stop creating accounts and stop evading your block. Then, make a request with your original account. All you are doing here is showing you continue to lack the competence to be unblocked and haven't the slightest intention of abiding by our policies. Yamla (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2021 (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.

Actually I didn't want to create this account but for some edits I had to create an account PrfctSam (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Shaiksuhana2 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaiksuhana2. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that I've made multiple accounts which led me to be a sockpuppet, Even though I didn't have any bad intention, It happened, unfortunately, I clearly understand why I was blocked so I want to start a new chapter of This Account and I am ready to contribute for good. You can delete that account, I promise there won't be any problem from my side, Hope I will get a Second Chance. Thank you. I'm looking forward to your response. Pls un block this Acc and @Tajmashaik Account

Decline reason:

No reply to me in months. Please feel free to open a new request when you have the time available to respond to the reviewing admin. SQL ^{Query Me!} 04:28, 24 September 2022 (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.

PrfctSam (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What concerns me is that in this edit they fessed up to a bunch of socks, but managed to leave PrfctSam off the list. I'll leave the final decision up to another admin, but I'll at least note here for the record that I'm fine with any admin unblocking my checkuser block of PrfctSam. On the other hand, I assume if any account gets unblocked, it'll be Shaiksuhana2 since that's the master account, in which case you'll need to get Bbb23's consent. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reasoning for asking that Tajmashaik be unblocked here? You said that you didn't have any bad intentions, but it looks like you were trying to make accounts with names similar to an admin's name. Are you able to reconcile that? SQL ^{Query Me!} 01:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]