User talk:WikiDoner

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Ali1872 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) 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) 14:46, 25 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

you should at least first give somebody a chance, or a warning message. Moreover the not much reliable sources for the extensive page edits to Aga Syed Hussain were to supported by more reliable source which i was to add but unfortunately blocked. please have a look at the link to this historic gazette http://pahar.in/mountains/Books%20and%20Articles/Indian%20Subcontinent/1939%20Revised%20List%20of%20Ruling%20Princes%20Chiefs%20and%20Leading%20Personages%20of%20Jammu%20and%20Kashmir%20State%20and%20Gilgit%20Agency%20s.pdf . You will find all the information which appeared to you as bogus and untrue as completely correct with historical evidences. you can edit that page on that grounds. But accusing of sockpuppetry is highly uncalled for. There is no such contribution to wikipedia from my side which is false and fabricated. i Understand that to uphold the integrity and truthfulness of a topic is the utmost priority. moreover if i contribute something i consider it as a responsibility and more a duty to remain truthful as much as i can so that there is not even an iota of doubt left. i am sorry if my unreliable links have posed questions of doubting my integrity. i request my account be unblocked. otherwise if you have a full proof evidence to doubt my integrity please go ahead for the indefinite blocking process. its better to be blocked than to remain in suspicion for contributing bogus articles. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) i would again say that i never intended to contribute something which is false. Best wishes to you.

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the reason for your block. You weren't blocked because of your contributions, you were blocked because you are an alternate account. See WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. No warnings are necessary in that case. Yamla (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2016 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

You have removed all the genuine contributions just because i contributed few edits to pages in my personal capacity like Agha Ashraf Ali, Aga Syed Hussain and other pages like Agha Nasir Ali and Begum Zafar Ali. You have also processed the deletion of my article Agha (Hakim) Muhammad Baqir which was approved at the very first instance and was never contested for unreliable sources being authentic in its references just like my edits to the page Agha Ashraf Ali which no longer exists now. you may delete all these pages as it pleases you just for "excuses" of sockpuppetry. you cannot remove the results of these pages in google as they will continue to remain as persons of eminence and great historical repute. its unfortunate wikipedia does not want to keep itself updated as far as History of Kashmir is concerned. you could have retained the pages atleast after verifying the authenticity. i do admit that i have shared my wifi password in the past but that should not have been an excuse to delete an authentic article. No contributions from now on from my side to wikipedia. i guess wikipedia has too great minds who can judge best on basis of sockpuppetry and delete authentic articles. i would just say do have a look on what you have deleted. Agha Ashraf Ali and others which you are going to delete.

Decline reason:

This request still does not address the reason for your block, and that is your use of multiple accounts. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to address that and only that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2016 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

The reason for unblocking is that i should be allowed to contribute as i did and if there is anything that i contribute to wikipedia and which lacks authenticity , that particular thing should be deleted. As simple as that. just because few lines in the articles were not supported by authentic references or links doesnt mean you will block the user.My reason is that i have been trying to contribute on my behalf but you have continuously blocked me. All those accounts were mine but used by me one after another, only when previous one was blocked. This wikiDoner was also made when the previous one was blocked and it all started just because you thought my articles were bogus. just search the links properly of the content which i had uploaded. you will get the answer that my articles were not false. i know you still dont find any reason to unblock me. go ahead and block it permanently. Its such a pity i contributed articles with too much reliable and authentic sources but they will now be deleted . infact two of them have already been deleted.

Decline reason:

This request still does not address the reason for your block, and that is your use of multiple accounts. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to address that and only that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:07, 31 August 2016 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

alright i apologise for using multiple accounts. All those accounts were mine but used by me one after another, only when previous one was blocked by you guys. This wikiDoner was also made when the previous one was blocked and it all started just because you thought my articles were bogus. just search the links properly of the content which i had uploaded. you will get the answer that my articles were not false.

Decline reason:

You should make an unblock request from your original account. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2016 (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.

Talk page access revoked[edit]

You are clearly wasting our time here. I have revoked your talk page access, as per WP:LISTEN. I will leave your last unblock request for another admin to review. --Yamla (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]