Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

User talk:MehmoodS

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MehmoodS (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 30 January 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You are not allowed to use large quotations in "quote=" parameter. It should not exceed more than 25 words in general. If you have questions reply here, not on my talk page. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel If that is the case, then the quotes can be shortened. You could have just notified but still needs to be verified if what you suggested is accurate. There was no need to revert. MehmoodS (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear need to revert. You are removing "Maratha victory" despite being warned not to remove it. It is staying there for years and you can't remove it without gaining consensus first. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aman.kumar.goel There is no policy that states that something that has been there for years cannot be corrected. The information earlier had false quotes and I added the correct one which you reverted. Also its up to you and the previous user to reach concensus as there is discussion already in place that you haven't even taken consideration.MehmoodS (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were not correcting anything but only modifying according what you wanted to by using a misleading edit summary.[1] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
surprised that you are here as part of the discussion now. Interesting. It was clearly a correction as the quotes you added were false quotes which were part of the war during initial state and not what the end result was in 1782. Therefore, the quotes you used were definitely misleading. MehmoodS (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting I left a message here about 8 hours ago. A source already existed on infobox which says "This period also coincided with the First Anglo-Maratha War, which was settled only in 1782 with a Maratha victory over the British and their local allies.". How you could "correct" anything by misrepresenting the source? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take such source such as that of Barbara West through WP:RSN to get opinion about its reliability because its not as Barbara A. West holds a Ph.D. in social anthropology from the University of Rochester in New York. She is not an academicians historian. I didn't even look at her citation earlier due to above reason as it wasn't worthy to look at as compared to other citations by actual historians such as M.S. Naravane, Richard Ernest Dupuy, Gay M. Hammerman, Grace P. Hayes, James C. Bradford. And the quotes by these historians were added as correction which were misrepresented earlier.MehmoodS (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the problem?

What is the problem in adding “Chhatrapati” to Shivaji Maharaj? How is this disruptive? Kindly explain! Avinash.umb (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

answered on your talk page. MehmoodS (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are continuously removing Shivaji Maharaj's name as one liner? Ankitudawant (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

answered on your talk page.MehmoodS (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

×== Edit ==

We were editing at the same time which I kinda messed up your edit without knowing. Wikipedia is bugging for me, I cannot post a correct edit for some reason. S.G ReDark (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.G ReDark Please continue with your edits. I will review it later if any format or alignment needs fixed. MehmoodS (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:) S.G ReDark (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well finished ..... kinda for some reason I can't edit properly which causes my edits to be a mess. Can you fix the rest since I can't for some reason S.G ReDark (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.G ReDark Publication subsection looks good. Is there any section you need help with? Overall, well written. MehmoodS (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that means a lot. Well I wanted to do the same above with the exhibitions. Example

  • Exhibition 1
  • Exhibition 2

and so on (hopefully you understand what I mean). S.G ReDark (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.G ReDark yes please continue. You can also use your own sandbox to experiment. MehmoodS (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how does it work? S.G ReDark (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just started editing Wikipedia so I don't know much S.G ReDark (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.G ReDark This link will provide you information and instruction on sandbox. Wikipedia:Sandbox MehmoodS (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll check it. Also I made a new update check it if you want :) S.G ReDark (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made minor fix but looks good otherwise.MehmoodS (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:HaughtonBrit per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. 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 ~~~~}}.  Vanjagenije (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is my one and only account. This block is a mistake. Please look at my contributions and they are all made with sincerity and dedication in improving the encyclopedia. This request has been submitted in bad faith to prevent from examining edits by Aman.kumar.Goel on article First Anglo-Maratha War. The information had inconsistencies and was not supported by the citations. Even the quotes within the templates were incorrect. I made correction and added citation as well as updated quote parameter as can be seen here [2] and here [3]. And this change was first reverted by Abhishek0831996 [4] and after I reverted Abhishek0831996 with description to discuss concern in talk page which I previously did as well, Aman.kumar.goel steps in and reverts my changes back to version by Abhishek0831996 [5]. I believe an off wiki canvassing was in place here as this concern was discussed previously [6]. Tamzin can provide more insight about this previous case. Aman.kumar.goel's reason for revert was "copyvio" and after questioning him for clarification, he made a statement that "You are not allowed to use large quotations in "quote=" parameter. It should not exceed more than 25 words in general." [7]. I haven't heard of such rule so far and needed verification from admin. I contacted admin who didn't agree with this statement [8] and I let Aman.kumar.goel know about it on First Anglo-Maratha War article's talk page where I initially started discussion about the dispute. Aman.kumar.goel accused me of canvassing and I told him that to get verification or confirmation is not canvassing [9]. I went ahead and submitted request on WP:RSN on two questionable authors where one is Humanist and the other is Anthropologist and do not have expertise in the subject as neither are historians [10]. I also submitted request for opinion on examining the result on the article on [11], due to dispute and it was necessary for 3rd opinions. Aman.kumar.goel I believe was upset with such submission of investigation and to prevent it, submitted this sock request in bad faith. I have been a very sincere editor throughout 8 months. Since I have been here, I have used necessary platforms to resolve disputes. I have also prevented disruptions and vandalism and made tremendous improvement to encyclopedia and would like to continue to do so. My edit history speaks for my contributions and credibility as faithful editor. I am sorry for this long message as I felt it was necessary to detail the facts and I am also sorry if I offended anyone as that isn't my intention from this message. Please Vanjagenije, or Bbb23, GeneralNotability, Tamzin or any other Admins, please review my request and sincerely request you to unblock me. MehmoodS (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unadulterated nonsense. Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 9 July 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.

GeneralNotability thank you for looking into my request. Like I mentioned in my unblock request, this is my one and only account. I have not used any other account simultaneously. Please look at my contribution history. My work speaks of me as a faithful editor who has worked everyday to stop disruption and vandalism. Please I request you to unblock me. Please do consider. MehmoodS (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability, vandalism is happening on pages that I prevented them from such as on Battle of Umberkhind, Battle of Kolhapur, Baji Prabhu Deshpande, where IPs and new accounts are pushing honorifics into these pages. There is no one checking these pages and editors like Akshaypatill who are aware of this, are not taking any actions against such disruptions or warning editors of MOS:HON and then there are other pending change reviewers who have witnessed it, but just turn the blind eye. Please look at my contribution where I constantly warned and protected pages from such disruptions. Please do consider of unblocking me so that I can continue to improve encyclopedia and prevent its articles from being disrupted. MehmoodS (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MehmoodS, with two admins looking at the CU data, I don't think you can come back easily from this (I also note your use of simultaneously in "not used any other account simultaneously"). My suggestion is that you fess up on all accounts you have ever used, simultaneously or not, declare which account you will continue to use going forward (that becomes your primary account), then find something else to do for a minimum of six months and see if you can convince someone to unblock you. I suggest you read WP:SOCKBLOCK carefully. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark editors with two or more accounts simultaneously, is to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt. A great example would be Suthasianhistorian8 who had about 7-8 accounts that he used simultaneously. I have followed sockpuppet policy and that is why only used one account. Since I have had this account, I haven't had any other account that I used simultaneously with this account and I don't know what CU data is of concern here. This is my one and only account that I have used in last 9 months and this the only account that I have been using and will continue with moving forward and this is my only primary account. When you say that find something else to do for 6 months, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean to step away for six months from Wikipedia and then re-request to unblock? But can't admins continue to investigate as I have digressed enough to look at my contribution and tell me if I have in any way caused any nuisance or disruption on Wikipedia. I just request to have my account unblocked. MehmoodS (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is my one and only account. This block is a mistake. Please look at my contributions and they are all made with sincerity and dedication in improving the encyclopedia. This request has been submitted in bad faith to prevent from examining edits by Aman.kumar.Goel on article First Anglo-Maratha War. The information had inconsistencies and was not supported by the citations. Even the quotes within the templates were incorrect. I made correction and added citation as well as updated quote parameter as can be seen here [12] and here [13]. And this change was first reverted by Abhishek0831996 [14] and after I reverted Abhishek0831996 with description to discuss concern in talk page which I previously did as well, Aman.kumar.goel steps in and reverts my changes back to version by Abhishek0831996 [15]. I believe an off wiki canvassing was in place here as this concern was discussed previously [16]. Tamzin can provide more insight about this previous case. Aman.kumar.goel's reason for revert was "copyvio" and after questioning him for clarification, he made a statement that "You are not allowed to use large quotations in "quote=" parameter. It should not exceed more than 25 words in general." [17]. I haven't heard of such rule so far and needed verification from admin. I contacted admin who didn't agree with this statement [18] and I let Aman.kumar.goel know about it on First Anglo-Maratha War article's talk page where I initially started discussion about the dispute. Aman.kumar.goel accused me of canvassing and I told him that to get verification or confirmation is not canvassing [19]. I went ahead and submitted request on WP:RSN on two questionable authors where one is Humanist and the other is Anthropologist and do not have expertise in the subject as neither are historians [20]. I also submitted request for opinion on examining the result on the article on [21], due to dispute and it was necessary for 3rd opinions. Aman.kumar.goel I believe was upset with such submission of investigation and to prevent it, submitted this sock request in bad faith. I have been a very sincere editor throughout 8 months. Since I have been here, I have used necessary platforms to resolve disputes. I have also prevented disruptions and vandalism and made tremendous improvement to encyclopedia and would like to continue to do so. My edit history speaks for my contributions and credibility as faithful editor. I am sorry for this long message as I felt it was necessary to detail the facts and I am also sorry if I offended anyone as that isn't my intention from this message. Admin Bbb23 blocked me from editing my own talk page just to suppress my voice, so that is why I have to resubmit while logging out. Please go through my contribution. I have also known about sock policy and I have NOT used any other account simultaneously nor committed Sockpuppetry. This (MehmoodS) is my one and only primary account that I would continue to use moving forward. I have been using this account for last 9 months. Request you to please unblock me. 50.248.64.249 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request has not been posted by this account. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:32, 9 July 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.

Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked over 6 months ago for all right reasons and now decided to appeal as per the Wikipedia policy of waiting 6 months. It’s been well over 6 months that my account had been blocked and I took all this time to understand and realize the mistakes that I made and very sincerely apologize for my behavior to every editor and Administrator on Wikipedia. I had an account HaughtonBrit which I created about 3 years ago and while trying to prevent being stalked by another user, I made a mistake by creating multiple accounts. When my account HaughtonBrit was blocked along with other accounts that I used simultaneously, I wasn’t aware that I should have waited 6 months to appeal unblock. Therefore, I ended up creating account MehmoodS and kept this as my one and only user account where I made well over 3000 sincere edits with reliable sources from scholars. I even made great contribution in preventing vandalism and was given the privilege as Pending Change reviewer. But then it was found that my account MehmoodS and HaughtonBrit were connected so I got blocked again. And I deliberately lied refusing to accept that HaughtonBrit was my previous account. This caused further lack of trust in admins who could clearly see through my lies. It was a very immature step I took when all I had to do was just fess up. Two-Three admins told me to fess up but I was worried and scared that if I admit then I would remain blocked. The other reason for lying was also because of being self egoistic. I felt with MehmoodS I created a well enough reputation as an editor that by accepting my past as HaughtonBrit, I would throw all that down the hole. I felt that by admitting my mistake, I would cause a threat to my identity as MehmoodS. Because of this immaturity I lied and lied and lied, denying to admit that I had any previous blocked account. This was just so wrong, immature and selfish of me. As I deserved, I was indefinitely blocked. Through these 6-7 months, I not only realized my mistakes but also grew in maturity and have repent myself. Like I said earlier, it’s been well over 6 months and I sincerely apologize for abusing multiple accounts and I will never ever make such mistake again. Also as an FYI, since I couldn't file an appeal directly from the talk page of MehmoodS, I created a temporary account Fatih200 to get advise on how to appeal from administrator. I wasn't aware that this platform WP:UTRS existed till administrator Ponyo notified me. You can see the talk page if you have any question. I am sorry, really really sorry as I wasn't aware that I could file an appeal this way through [WP:UTRS]. Right after admin's suggestion, I retired the account Fatih200 with a tag. Once again I am really sorry for everything in the past and I have realized my mistake in all these 6 months and would really request to be unblocked so that I could continue making sincere contribution to Wikipedia. As per WP:LASTCHANCE please give me this last and final opportunity to be unblocked. I assure you that I won't make any blunder or lie or make any false statement. Please accept my sincere apology.MehmoodS (talk) 4:24 pm, 27 January 2023, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

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.

UTRS appeal #68677

I have reenabled talk page access for this user to make an unblock request here. Note that they did evade their block with Fatih200, but only to contest their block. Whether or not that precludes them from making a request under WP:SO is up to the reviewing admin. Checkuser data shows no other evidence of evasion. -- Yamla (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Forgive me if this is out of line, but this user has been editing logged out not only from this IP 50.248.64.249 but also consistently from two different ranges (close to a hundred or so edits since his block I believe, the last few as recent as January 19 of this year), not only that but also from a FedEx IP similar to the one listed on the Haughton Brit SPI page which he used to edit just one day after his July 5 block, and also from 3 different airports. Kindly advise me an appropriate course of action on how to inform admins of his continued sock puppetry since July 5 or whether I should even proceed with it at all. I understand that I have a problematic history myself and I don't want admins to think that I am reverting to past behaviour - I have committed to admins that I will stay away from India + religion topics for a long time and I stand by that, however this user's extensive use of deception, block evasion and using unsavory methods to frustrate other users, particularly myself, and your comment that CheckUser data shows no evidence of block evasion has impelled to write this to. There is iron clad evidence that proves he most certainly has been evading his block in a pretty egregious manner. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have ironclad evidence, WP:SPI is the way to go. Note that checkusers can't tie users to specific IP addresses, though. I will note that I saw no evidence of block evasion, though this does not necessarily preclude your ironclad evidence. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla:, he was using IP addresses to evade the block. If WP:SPI can't tie users to IPs what will be achieved by it? Just curious..Akshaypatill (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: These two users, particularly Suthasianhistorian8 was indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts and just recently his request was approved to be able to edit again. He and Akshaypatill are two users who have had issues with me regarding edits and now with my request for appeal, it has bothered them as they do not want my request to be approved. Please if you have any question regarding anything about my appeal, please do let me know. I have put everything on the table and there is nothing to hide.MehmoodS (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against you. I may have interacted with you maybe once or twice max and that too was peaceful. You had denied owning this account earlier and now accepting it. I am just helping admins to take a informed decision. Akshaypatill (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: Please let me know how long the request takes for coming down with a decision. Also please let me know if you have any questions for me or if there is something you think I missed to mention or admit or need clarification, please do ask. I am literally an open book. Won't hide anything and will answer all questions truthfully.MehmoodS (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit for more details. The following is a modified version of what I stated at SPI. Based on the comparison diffs presented by Suthasianhistorian8 in the "Recent..." section, particularly those added earlier in the process as I haven't looked at every single one, the behavioral evidence that the IPs and MehmoodS are the same person is sufficiently persuasive that in the normal course of events, the IPs would be blocked for block evasion. In addition, MehmoodS has demonstrated by their own admitted use of IPs in the past that they edit from Pittsburgh, and the IPv6s noted in the diffs geolocate to Pittsburgh.
    After my comments, Yamla responded in part: "CU isn't a silver bullet. If the consensus is that behavioural evidence indicates block evasion, we obviously should not lift the block." (for my complete comments and Yamla's full response see the report). Because the purpose of the SPI was not to block any of the IPs (their edits are not recent enough to warrant blocking), I bring this here as a better venue to discuss what to do and will close the SPI in a moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the pretty strong consensus is that (comparatively recent) block evasion has indeed happened and that the unblock request should therefore be declined. That is, I believe this is the position of everyone involved in this review. If people think differently, please speak up. --Yamla (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support the block in place: As mentioned thoroughly prior, there is no way that the 199 FedEx IP range as well as the 2600:1016 IPs' recent edits from July to January while being inactive in those areas prior to the July 5 block is coincidental. The latter also matching up precisely with the 50* IP's geolocation and behavioral evidence. Not to mention that MehmoodS also neglected to mention his connection to the WorldWikiAuthorOriginal account [22], which used to heavily edit the page Battle of Saragarhi, a battle which was led by a British figure, Colonel Haughton, hence the succeeding sock account being named HaughtonBrit, as well as the aggrandizing of British forces in Anglo-Afghan and Anglo-Maratha conflicts, a trait shared by all accounts. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am literally an open book. Won't hide anything and will answer all questions truthfully. MehmoodS, do you have a response to all this?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Yes, it is true that I made some edits while my account MehmoodS remained block but during that time I understood block evasion as someone whose account is blocked and then creates another account to disguise himself like I did when HaughtonBrit account was blocked and I created MehmoodS account right after. I was under the impression that once your account is blocked then you are literally not a member anymore but become a non-Wikipedia member who doesn't have an account and can edit pages but with IPs showing. After reading some explanation above, I realized that I misunderstood, made blunder and I really really apologize for it. Please forgive me. I had no intention to cause any disruption. Truly, deeply apologize. Please tell me what you suggest? Do you want me to reapply after certain period because of this mistake I made? Please do tell me.MehmoodS (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have lied too many times. I can't see a route for you to ever be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Please hear me out. I agree with you but that is all in the past and I admitted to everything. I really need this please and would take any strong suggestions or recommendations you can provide to prove myself as I know it's hard to believe someone who lied. That is why I gave all detail about my lies in my appeal. I also realized now I should have added about editing while blocked and I would definitely include in my appeal as well. You asked and I answered truthfully and admitted. I am willing to take any suggestions. Please give me one last final opportunity.MehmoodS (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MehmoodS&oldid=1136517126"