User talk:Genuinewikiuser

December 2022

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, O. P. Singh, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made no mistake, but I did not add the exact link. I will now make this change only after I get the reliable source. Thanks a lot for pointing this out. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Subhash Ghai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FIR. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hi Genuinewikiuser! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Gautam Adani‎ that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Gautam Adani did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bharatiya Janata Party, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding cut-and-paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Adhikar Sena a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Adhikar Sena. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 08:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. So kind of you. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources is NOT a minor change

Doug Weller talk 08:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I shall keep this in mind. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Akhilesh Yadav, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PTI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Genuinewikiuser. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Amitabh Thakur, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Maduant (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr/Ms Maduant, I make it very clear that I, along with Goodwikie to whom exactly similar question was posed by you which was an extremely true assessment, have a direct conflict of interest with the following-

(1) Amitabh Thakur

(2) Nutan Thakur

I am not a paid employee nor are they my client but it is an extremely close association. It is for these reasons that I am specially interested in their pages and issues related with them on other pages. But at the same time, I make it clear that I have not presented a single incorrect or untrue fact on these pages nor will it be done in the future. It is also not advertising but merely an attempt to bring the true facts about them. Kindly allow me to look after the pages associated with them where I shall be immensely truthful and shall be based solely on facts and evidences.

At the same time, I shall also be undertaking editing ad contributing in all other possible ways to Wikipedia in an equally dispassionate, neutral and fact-based and evidence-based manner.

Regards,

Genuinewikiuser Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Azad Adhikar Sena

Hello, Genuinewikiuser

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bensci54, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Azad Adhikar Sena, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Bensci54}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bensci54 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bensci54:

Dear Sir,

You said as regards the article on Azad Adhikar Sena as follows-

"This page seems largely promotional, and of dubious notability, seeing as it isn't actually yet a registered party. (proposed by Bensci54)"

Meanwhile this objection seems to have been disagreed by 02 persons and the same message is not presently visible but I find it appropriate to present the facts that prima-facie establish that the page deserves to be there on Wikipedia, despite the party not having been registered with the Election Commission of India as yet. The reasons are as follows-

1. As per Indian laws, Registration of a political party is not mandatory for a party to work and exist.

2. Hence non-registration of a political party does not make it irrelevant and it can still exist and work.

3. Azad Adhikar Sena has already applied for registration which is in the process.

4. Even otherwise, the party is now working for around 01 year with full swing.

5. The number of activities quoted in the article make it clear that the party is not non-functional or non-existent but is very much there on ground.

6. The truth is that though the party is trans-national in its flavour and thinking but presently it is more visible and impactful in the state of Uttar Pradesh, where it is certainly making its impact felt.

7. The news articles attached along with the Wiki page also show that the party is spread in different parts of Uttar Pradesh.

8. This is the reason why majority of news articles are in Hindi language because Hindi is the predominant language of this State and not English.

8. There are many more news articles related with the Party that have not been attached.

9. The party is definitely working hard to work against injustice, atrocity and corruption and for the rights of common people, with all its earnest.

10. Hence the facts stated are not promotional in nature but only state the truth.

11. Again, almost every word is based on one or more reliable sources, as can be seen from the references.

In view of these facts, deleting this article would be prima-facie an injustice and impropriety in itself and the wiki page us needed in larger public interest.

~ Thanks and Regards Genuinewikiuser (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Akhilesh Yadav, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DGP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an acronym of Director General of Police, and is a widely used term in India. Hence, it may kindly be retained. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre edits

Can you please explain what you are trying to do with edits like these? [1], [2]. The first is completely bizarre; the second does not cite any sources, something you've been warned about before. It seems to me you're not taking editing here very seriously. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly.

To begin with, I apologize that I had left the edit half-way to go for my daily routine.

Now I have corrected and completed both the edits, as regards Ram Prakash Gupta and Kalyan Singh.

As can be easily seen, both these are based solely and completely on verifiable facts and documents.

They are also of extreme historic importance, as can be seen from a perusal of these attached documents.

Regards. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 Looks like the COI editing is blatantly violating BLPs, yesterday [3] copy-paste from Feb 2023 [4] and Dec 2022 [5]

Some COI (paid I suppose) editing from Adani related to Hindenburg [6], and others [7] declared in the user page.

I also suspect some meatpuppetry with Special:Contributions/Goodwikie — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

==Relationship with BJP==

I have very strong apprehension that you have a very close relation with BJP and your reactions to my edits are primarily governed by that relationship.

I would request you to kindly clarify yourself in that count. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you are working for BJP and its people because all the issues raised by you are very closely related with them, including the Adani matter.

Kindly state the truth in this matter. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also being prayed to kindly not come in the way of truthful and genuine contributions Genuinewikiuser (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for your response to disclosure of your relationship with Bhartiya Janata Party. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your extra-ordinary interest in selective subjects gives a very strong indication that you are not working in a neutral manner but are working here to keep certain hard truth away from Wikipedia readers, on behalf of someone, most probably BJP. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My submission is that you kindly come out with truth in this regards. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is once again prayed to kindly not come in the way of truth and delete those articles written/amended by me which are based purely and completely on facts and reliable evidences. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such an act comes in the way of truth and justice, and also hampers the basic purpose of Wikipedia. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Kumar moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Avinash Kumar. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I shall present the article with such sources.

Regards Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through these rules and norms with great alertness, and shall certainly adhere to them to the best of my understanding, "to err on the side of caution". Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, I find it my duty to bring relevant and historically important facts in such contentious matters, even if it is not to the liking of the concerned persons and their blind followers, in the interest of truth and justice. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you would completely agree out there. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also being prayed to you to kindly your undo the "Edit undos" done by me on issues of relevance. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genuinewikiuser: If you meet resistance to your edits, you should use the article talk page to discuss them. Statistics for your account show that 86% of your edits were to articles and only 2% to article talk pages. Experienced editors such as DaxServer and Toddy1 do 52-53% of their edits to articles and 16% to article talk pages. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly abide by your advice Mr @Toddy1. I will go by these words of wisdom.

At the same time, I would like to bring it in your notice that though @DaxServer might be experienced, but my interactions with him in the last 3-4 days has made me clear that he is not at all a neutral Editor, but seems to be clearly and directly working for the political party BJP because each of my Edits related with BJP leaders, which are true in fact and content and are fully backed by evidences in the shape of reliable sources, have been removed by him, with very strange reasoning, which shows his extra-interests as regards these topics, which cannot be called neutral in any manner.

It is for these reasons that I have reverted back many of his Edits, as they are against the interest of Truth and Justice. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to use standard English-language capitalisation - if what you write looks competent, people are more likely to accept it. There are common nouns and proper nouns.^{scribbr explanation} A common noun is not capitalised unless it is the first word of a sentence. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Toddy1, let me assure you that I have adequate knowledge of English, through my long usage of the language.

Hence I most humbly request you to kindly completely refrain from making such comments, which unknowingly acquire a personal colour and are hence completely against the ethos of Wikipedia Edit norms.

Regards Genuinewikiuser (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pachrukhiya case moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Pachrukhiya case. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar, you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and also a contentious WP:BLP article. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @DaxServer, as stated by ne again and again, your Edits so far and your interactions have made it understood beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not a neutral and independent Editor but seem to be working for the political party BJP because so far you have edited/undone at least a dozen of my Edits, which are uncomfortable to BJP and its people, be it related with Kusum Rai, or Kalyan Singh or Lalji Tandon or Yogi Adityanath Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On each occasion, you have given a different logic but there is a common thread- the article is about a BJP personality and seems to be slightly uncomfortable to them, which you have got deleted. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @DaxServer, you need to kindly understand that truth is much more important than discomfort and a fact cannot be hidden or removed merely because it is uncomfortable to some, as long as it is based on truth and has definite basis, based on reliable sources. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all these cases, my Edit is based completely on facts and evidences, based on extremely reliable sources. Yet you have removed them which is highly unjustified. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In view of these facts, I am restoring the article, because of the relevance and importance of the incidence.

Kindly refrain from removing it again or from moving it to draft section, because the article is good enough to be initiated and to be kept in the main and active section. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the issue of Conflict of Interest is concerned, let me assure you that there is no conflict of Interest and whatever has been stated in the given case is based solely in larger public interest, to bring forth the truth. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, I request you not to unnecessarily raise the issue of Conflict of Interest, when no such interest, except larger public interest and interest in bringing the truth exists. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, let me assure you sir that I have adequate knowledge of English, through my long usage of the language, which makes the write-up as soon as that of any other Indian writing in English.

Hence I most humbly request you to kindly completely refrain from making such comments, which unknowingly acquire a personal colour and are hence completely against the ethos of Wikipedia Edit norms. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Gorakhpur Riots moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 2007 Gorakhpur Riots. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar, you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and has issues of editorialization. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr @DaxServer, your comments/logic used for removing both the Pachrukhiya case and 2007 Gorakhpur riots is almost the same. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, the response to both is the same.

To beging with, as stated by ne again and again, your Edits so far and your interactions have made it understood beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not a neutral and independent Editor but seem to be working for the political party BJP because so far you have edited/undone at least a dozen of my Edits, which are uncomfortable to BJP and its people. On each occasion, whenever the article is about a BJP personality and brings forth true but slightly uncomfortable historical facts about them, you have immediately intervened and got them deleted. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all these cases, including the creation of articles related with Pachrukhiya case and 2007 Gorakhpur riots, my Edit is based completely on facts and evidences, based on extremely reliable sources. Hence their removal is highly unjustified. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In articles serve definite historical purposes and are needed to be there for larger public interest and to bring forth the truth, which is the foremost governing principle and reason for existence of Wikipedia. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In view of these facts, I am restoring both these articles, because of the relevance and importance of the incidence.

Kindly refrain from removing it again or from moving it to draft section, because the articles are good enough to be initiated and to be kept in the main and active section. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that there is no conflict of Interest and whatever has been stated in the given case is based solely in larger public interest, to bring forth the truth.

Let me also assure you sir that I have adequate knowledge of English, through my long usage of the language, which makes the write-up as soon as that of any other Indian writing in English.

Hence I most humbly request you to kindly completely refrain from making such comments, which unknowingly acquire a personal colour and are hence completely against the ethos of Wikipedia Edit norms. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely aware of the facts/requirements of contentious topics and undertake the Edits (including creation of new topics) with great alacrity and responsibility.

I assure you that I shall keep this in mind in future.

I also thank you for having reminded me the same. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, I would like to present this fact in your notice that there seem to be people like @DaxServer, working for the political party BJP who have unnecessarily and improperly edited many of my Edits related with persons belonging to this party.

The way they have acted and reacted, has raised clear questions about their neutrality, which means that they may kindly be completely refrained from Editing my Edits, because of their Bias and clear demonstration of Conflict of Interest. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pachrukhiya Case (Maharajganj) (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Afyaniuhai was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Pachrukhiya Case (Maharajganj), which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Another draft with the same name and context already exists, see Draft:Pachrukhiya case. It should be merged to avoid unnecessary disambiguation.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pachrukhiya Case (Maharajganj) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

ANU^writes 14:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have experienced clear untoward behaviour at the end of Mr @DaxServer, who has unnecessarily and unwarrantedly deleted/undone many of my Edits.

Hence kindly refrain him from Editing/undoing my Edits. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft for Pachrukhiya article may kindly be merged with the main article, which is again being presented. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Genuinewikiuser! Having an article draft 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! ANU^writes 14:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr @Afyaniuhai, I thank you for having shown such a concern. There are definite issues rising because of certain people but they are certainly not going to stop me from bringing forth the truth and continue making Edits in the interest of truth and truthful knowledge.

Regards Genuinewikiuser (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and personal attacks.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Doug Weller, I would request you to kindly let me know why I have been blocked, because to the best of my understanding, I have not made any single Edit which is incorrect or untrue, or is concocted/framed/false.

In such circumstances, when I made only truthful and genuine Edits, to the best of my understanding, I feel truly perturbed by this Blocking and want your assistance in knowing why exactly I have been blocked, so that I might put forth my Appeal in this regards. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to help you, but you have a battleground mentality, and responded like this. You cannot understand that another editor can disagree with your text for technical reasons; in your mind they are an enemy.

"Technical reasons" means stuff like: (1) writing proper grammatical English, (2) providing proper citations for statements about a contemporary politician, (3) not creating controversy sections, (4) giving due weight to an incident in an article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Toddy1, From what you have written here, it seems to emerge that though I had written was not untrue but there were what you have called "technical reasons" which I possibly needed to understand in more depth.

I do want to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia.

In view of these facts and having understood the basic nuance of your words, I request you to kindly lift this blocking, so that I might contribute more to Wikipedia, while sticking to its basic principles with much more rigour. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Doug Weller, in continuation of your previous mail and the reply from Mr @Toddy1, I seem to have understood the fact that though I had written was not untrue but there were what you have called "technical reasons" which I possibly needed to understand in more depth.

I do want to be a regular, truthful and honest contributor to Wikipedia.

In view of these facts and having understood the basic nuance of these words, I request you to kindly lift this blocking, so that I might contribute more to Wikipedia, while sticking to its basic principles with much more rigour. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: please could you help with the following: It appears that Genuinewikiuser tried to give Draft:2007 Gorakhpur Riots a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2007 Gorakhpur riots. I have asked for a history merge. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Toddy1, I never did any improper act, nor did anything cunningly or by hiding. It seems there is a small difference between the two topics- "Draft:2007 Gorakhpur Riots" and "2007 Gorakhpur riots", but I can assure you that it was completely unintended as I could not know that inadvertently I am using a small r instead of Capital R used previously.

I would also request that to the best of my understanding, I have not made any single Edit which is incorrect or untrue, or is concocted/framed/false.

In such circumstances, when I made only truthful and genuine Edits, I feel truly perturbed by this Blocking and shall soon Appeal in this regards, for which I have requested Mr @Doug Weller to provide me the reason for blocking. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste moves are against policy. I have asked that the page histories be merged. I have not expressed an opinion on (a) whether the "r" in the title is large or small, or (b) whether the article should be in draft or mainspace.

I accept that you cannot understand that what I have done is a technical matter. I was going to change one of 2007 Gorakhpur riots and Draft:2007 Gorakhpur Riots to a redirect to the other. But I noticed that you had made edits to 2007 Gorakhpur riots, and I assumed that they had value and should not be deleted. So I took action to try to ensure that the page histories of both pages are preserved by merging them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Toddy1, From what you have written here, it seems to emerge that though I had written was not untrue but there were what you have called "technical reasons" which I possibly needed to understand in more depth.

I do want to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia.

In view of these facts and having understood the basic nuance of your words, I request you to kindly immediately lift this blocking, so that I might contribute more to Wikipedia, while sticking to its basic principles with much more rigour. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

. Can I give some advice.

Spend a bit of time trying to understand how the "technical reasons" apply to your edits over the past two weeks.
Make a list (on a piece of paper) of editors who reverted you for "technical reasons", where you misunderstood what was going on, and responded with personal attacks (such as accusing them of supporting the BJP).
Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.
Have a go at completing the unblock request template: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} but do not submit.
Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks again, and ask yourself whether your unblock request complies with what it says.
Consider whether to include in the unblock request an apology to any of the editors on your paper list.
When you are ready (take your time, there is no hurry) submit your unblock request.

Remember it is quicker and less stressful to spend three hours doing a compliant unblock request, than 5 minutes on each of five unblock requests, and six hours arguing how unfair it seems that they were all rejected.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Toddy1, I profusely thank you for the above mentioned advices/words of suggestions. Each of them count a lot.

I shall undertake the above mentioned exercise with all the required sincerity and seriousness, and shall make a request to unblock, only when I have understood them properly, in their completeness.

I am sure my future journey with Wikipedia would be much more fruitful, enjoying and enriching for everyone concerned.

Regards Genuinewikiuser (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Genuinewikiuser seems to have a connection with user Goodwikie, who also mentions the same affiliation on their userpage. The EIA shows a strong link: both users editing in the same area and the same articles. Additionally, they both seem involved in what looks like harassment towards user "DaxServer" (e.g. this). Considering this, it's reasonable to think they might be working together, possibly indicating meatpuppetry. GSS ^💬 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU blocked. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 17:38, 14 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

My reasons for requesting to unblock my two accounts @GenuineWikiuser and @Goodwikie are as follows-
1. I have never hidden any fact from Wikipedia and have always been completely transparent in my functioning, including the fact that I had personal interests in pages like Amitabh Thakur, Nutan Thakur, Azad Adhikar Sena etc, which I very clearly stated/mentioned it, even before anyone asked me.
2. I made edits for these pages but none of these edits was hypothetical, unwarranted or imaginary. Instead each of these edits was based solely on facts and was backed by a large number of reliable sources. That is the reason why all these pages still have many of the Edits made by me completely intact.
3. I also made many edits to various other pages. Some of them were small, while many of them were important contribution to Wikipedia. Hence it can be seen that I had been a valuable and useful contributor to Wikipedia, to the best of my abilities.
4. The trouble started when I edited a few pages related with Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders including Kalyan Singh, Kusum Rai, Ram Prakash Gupta, Yogi Adityanath, Lalji Tandon etc.
5. These edits were based on facts and reliable news articles. They were also historically relevant and none of them were irrelevant in any manner. Even when they were related with personal lives of these leaders, these facts had their independent and important political/historical reasons, as these issues had played important role in the course of political history.
6. These edits were almost immediately removed after being presented, despite the edits being truthful, genuine and based on reliable evidences.
7. Not fully acquainted with the Wikipedia way of functioning, instead of referring the matters to higher Editors, I got many of these pages re-edited and restored.
8. The same thing happened with three pages I created, on 2007 Gorakhpur Riots, on Pachrukhiya case and on Parvez Parwaz, all related with current Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in different ways.
9. All these events have extreme historic and political importance in UP Politics, but these Pages were also immediately removed.
10. Once again, instead of referring the matter to higher Editors, I myself tried to restore it, which I admit as being my mistake.
11. I also made certain comments as regards the Editors, who removed/deleted my Edits and Pages, which were personal in nature and should have certainly been avoided.
12. In the meanwhile, I have understood the functioning of Wikipedia in a much better way and shall not repeat these mistakes. I would also prove to be a useful hand for Wikipedia, given my enthusiasm for the work, my sincerity, my urge for truthfulness and insistence on reliable evidences.
13. In view of all these facts, I request you to kindly immediately revoke the ban/blocking done to me on Edit.
14. I give the most earnest and sincere undertaking that these inadvertent mistakes will not get repeated, and also that I shall take every measure to get fully assimilated in the large ocean of respected Wikipedia editors. I also assure you that I shall make as much valuable contributions to Wikipedia as possible.
15. Finally, I also make an open disclaimer that as righty pointed out, I work through two accounts, @GenuineWikiuser and @Goodwikie and the issues related with both these accounts is the same, which shall never ever happen again.
16. Hence, I most humbly request to kindly unblock both these Wikipedia accounts, @GenuineWikiuser and @Goodwikie. Regards, @GenuineWikiuser / @Goodwikie - Genuinewikiuser (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Above your unblock request is a big warning: Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. In other words, I'm not allowed to grant your request. If you'd like, leave a message with a link to the userpage of the person who blocked you (include the code [[User:Doug Weller]] in the message) and ask him to review your request, since he's allowed to unblock you if he believes it appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 10:27, 23 April 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.

@Genuinewikiuser: Can I make a suggestion? Write a shorter version of the unblock request saying that (1) you understand what you were blocked for, and (2) you will not do those three things again. To show you understand, you need to explain in your own words why you got blocked (there were three reasons). Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks can help you.

If you really do need two differently named accounts, you need to explain why you need both of them. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I will let another Administrator to deal with this if they think I should unblock, they can ask me and I will. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Dear Administrators, I hereby present a shorter version of the unblock request primarily saying that- (1) I understand what I was blocked for, and (2) I will not do those three things again. I give the most sincere commitment that no disruptive editing and personal attacks would be found at my end in any manner, and there would never ever be any further complaint/issue as regards our editing. I would also ensure that no further occasion would arise for even the smallest issue to arise in our Editing process, which would abide by the Wikipedia norms in all possible manner. There are 02 accounts through which we are working. There is no specific requirement for 02 accounts, so that the other account @Goodwikie can, as well, be terminated, and this single account might be good enough. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

unblocked with a topic ban as agreed. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you posted the above today and failed to sign it. As I said on the 23rd, "I will let another Administrator to deal with this if they think I should unblock, they can ask me and I will." Please don't email me again. By 02 do you mean 2? Doug Weller talk 10:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added his/her signature. (We all sometimes forget to sign.)
I am certain that "02 accounts" meant "two accounts".-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mr @Doug Wellerand Mr @Toddy1.

I really want to contribute to Wikipedia and have a lot that I can do.

Kindly help me in this and I shall ever be obliged.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Toddy1, yes it does mean two accounts as rightly stated. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genuinewikiuser: I have two questions:

If you were unblocked on this account, will you promise not to create new/other accounts?
Please could you explain how/why your previous editing was disruptive. (The purpose of the question is to check that you understand.)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Toddy1,

My answer/response to the above two questions are as follows-

Q 1.If you were unblocked on this account, will you promise not to create new/other accounts?

Ans- I promise with all sincerity that I shall not create any new/other account and I shall undertake all the Editing solely and only through this account.

Q2. Please could you explain how/why your previous editing was disruptive. (The purpose of the question is to check that you understand.)

Ans- In following manner-

(i) It tried to deviate the establish protocol, causing chaos and stress/strain in the Editing process.

(ii) It unwarrantedly made an issue out of things and used prohibited methods in Editing system, viz., violating the protocol, overriding the established hierarchy of Editing, turning down the Editing of clearly higher level of Editors etc.

(iii) Making things personal and making personal comments, which should not have been done.

To the best of my understanding, I have fully realized why I had been blocked and in future I shall follow all the basic rules of Wikipedia Editing, and whenever in doubt, shall opt for being on the side of caution.

I do enjoy this work and hence I most earnestly request you to grant me this opportunity once again

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinewikiuser, your edits appear to be heavily politically motivated. As you have disclosed on your user page, you are affiliated with a political party, using this platform to promote their agenda by praising one party while targeting others. According to WP:COI, you are prohibited from directly creating or editing pages in the main namespace. So, instead of editing articles related to the political party you are associated with, what would you do to improve Wikipedia if you were unblocked? Also, could you please provide an explanation for creating another account, @Goodwikie? Is there a specific reason for this action? GSS ^💬 04:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr @GSS,

My primary area of interest include Hindi movies/actors etc, Hindi songs/singers etc, current affairs and politics.

Once unblocked, I would contribute to these areas, purely on facts and evidences.

At the same time, I assure once again that never ever a situation would arise, which could to be called disruptive in any manner and that I would completely follow the Wikipedia protocol at every stage.

As regards two accounts, there was no specific logic. As stated previously, there is no need for this other account @Goodwikie and the present account would be good enough.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Toddy1 and Mr @GSS,

In view of the above communications including the last one dated 11/05/2024, I most humbly request to kindly unblock, making an assurance once again that such situation of disruptive Editing shall not arise again and I shall definitely contribute positively to Wikipedia, with all my zeal and energy.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Doug Weller, Mr @GSS, Mr @Nyttendand Mr @Toddy1,

It is a gentle reminder to kindly get this account unblocked for editing, in view of all the above facts and the fact that I have not only apologized unconditionally but have also given my complete assurance to stick to the Wikipedia Editing Rules to the fullest.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your response to the suggestion that you can be unblocked but you need to accept a topic ban per the alert above from all pages relevant to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan? Doug Weller talk 13:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Doug Weller,

I fully accept topic ban per the alert above from all pages relevant to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And thanks for consideration to

unblock.

Regards,

to

It is a gentle reminder Genuinewikiuser (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider it and unless someone else objects unblock you on those conditions. I need a bit of time. Look at the bottom of my talk page to see why. Also, "gentle reminder" or even "reminder" can be annoying in this context. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinitely topic ban from all pages related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan

You have been sanctioned as a condition for unblocking you as agreed above.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Doug Weller,

I truly thank you from my heart for having lifted the sanction, albeit with certain conditions.

I promise once again that I would fully abide by the Wikipedia rules of Editing, along with the restrictions imposed.

I just wanted to know what exactly is meant by "topic ban from all pages related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan" and how do I identify these topics, about which I am not clear.

Kindly guide me please. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinewikiuser, according to WP:TBAN, you are not allowed to edit or create articles related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If you violate this restriction, you will be blocked for violating the terms of your unblocking condition. You are free to continue editing in other areas. GSS ^💬 05:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to write articles on the Indian film industry, you should have asked @Doug Weller: for a more limited topic ban than the one you were offered. Apoorv Singh Karki is an Indian film director, working in India, so any article on him or his films is related to India.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 Thanks Toddy. @Genuinewikiuser You are on your way to being blocked again. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Toddy1, @GSS and @Doug Weller,

I am extremely sorry for the same. I shall be very particular about the same in the future.

I have a few questions out there, which I shall be separately asking.

My sincerest apologies again.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr @Doug Weller,

I just saw, I have been blocked again.

I had been prohibited to edit or create articles related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. I had seen these words specifically mentioned in certain pages, which I had not edited in any manner.

I had only made completely non-controversial editions, mostly in Indian film/movie related pages.

In view of these facts, it is being prayed to kindly unblock me, as it was a completely unknowingly mistake.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't blocked. But you need to find other topics to edit that have nothing at all to do with India. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Mr @Doug Weller,

Whenever I am trying to Edit a page, I am getting this message-

"This account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.

The account ‪Goodwikie‬ has been blocked by ‪Doug Weller‬ for the following reason(s):

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text on your user talk page: {{unblock|Your reason here [[User:Genuinewikiuser|Genuinewikiuser]] ([[User talk:Genuinewikiuser#top|talk]]) 11:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

sock of User:Genuinewikiuser

This block will not expire."

Kindly help me with this.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed, as part of the discussion of your unblock request, that you only needed the Genuinewikiuser account unblocked.

Therefore Genuinewikiuser was unblocked.
Therefore Goodwikie‬ remained blocked.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genuinewikiuser And yet your are trying to use your other account. That one is blocked, which is why you couldn't edit. Please explain. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr @Doug Weller, I was not trying to use the other account @Goodwikie.

What had happened yesterday was that this @Genuinewikiuser account was shown as being locked with the following message-

"This account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.

The account ‪Goodwikie‬ has been blocked by ‪Doug Weller‬ for the following reason(s): XXXXXX"

It was this message that I had sent to you.

Summing it up, I was not using the other account but when I was trying to edit through @Genuinewikiuser, I was not being able to do so and the above message was coming.

Presently I am being able to edit through this account @Genuinewikiuser.

I abide by my words that I shall be using only this account.

Regards, @Genuinewikiuser Genuinewikiuser (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you tried to log in with your other account, which is why the message said "The account ‪Goodwikie‬ has been blocked". This login was about 20 minutes after you edited Bhaiyya Ji (violating your topic ban)with this account. You immediately logged out from Goodwikie and logged in with this account. You are wasting a lot of my time by not telling the truth and I'm struggling to see why I should not reblock you. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you tried to log in with your other account, which is why the message said "The account ‪Goodwikie‬ has been blocked". This login was about 20 minutes after you edited Bhaiyya Ji with this account. You immediately logged out from Goodwikie and logged in with this account. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr @Toddy1. I had said so and I fully stick to that. Yesterday, this @Genuinewikiuser account was shown as being locked with the following message-

"This account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.

The account ‪Goodwikie‬ has been blocked by ‪Doug Weller‬ for the following reason(s): XXXXXX"

It was this message that I had sent to you.

Summing it up, I was not using the other account but when I was trying to edit through @Geneuinewikiuser, I was not being able to do so and the above message was coming.

Pre4sently I am being able to edit through this account @Genuinewikiuser.

I abide by my words that I shall be using only this account.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genuinewikiuser: Two things you need to understand:

Doug Weller‬ has access to logs, so he knows better than you do what account you were logged in as
If you are dissatisfied with your unblock by Doug Weller, because you did not understand the extent of the topic ban, then you can always ask Doug Weller to reblock you.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorv Singh Karki moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Draft:Apoorv Singh Karki. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr @Jeraxmoira. For sure.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sirf Ek Bandaa Kaafi Hai into another page (Draft:Apoorv Singh Karki).^[8] Whilst you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genuinewikiuser and yet another problem with your editing. Not at all good. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr @Toddy1 and @Doug Weller,

I shall keep all this in mind. Thanks a lot.

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Doug Weller,

I have been prohibited to edit or create articles related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

It is being most humbly prayed that my knowledge is primarily limited to India and the Indian sub-continent, including films, sports, general happenings, politics and current events, so that if this restriction is extended to mean any articles related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, then my utility as an Editor gets extremely restricted.

In view of these facts, it is being prayed to kindly narrow down this restriction only to articles where specific reference has been made about the article being contentious or the words "related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan" is specifically mentioned.

As time would certainly prove, I am a responsible person and would prove to be a useful Wikipedia editor.

Hence, kindly reconsider the restriction and narrow it down to only contentious articles or articles where the words "related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan" is specifically mentioned

Regards, Genuinewikiuser (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how you contribute to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before you start editing again. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of topic ban

Just noting this officially. One free pass, next time blocked again. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Avinash Kumar

Hello, Genuinewikiuser. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Avinash Kumar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Pachrukhiya Case (Maharajganj)

Hello, Genuinewikiuser. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pachrukhiya Case (Maharajganj), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Pachrukhiya case

Hello, Genuinewikiuser. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pachrukhiya case, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:2007 Gorakhpur riots

Hello, Genuinewikiuser. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2007 Gorakhpur riots".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Apoorv Singh Karki

Hello, Genuinewikiuser. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Apoorv Singh Karki, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Apoorv Singh Karki

Hello, Genuinewikiuser. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Apoorv Singh Karki".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]