User talk:Abc-wtf-def

I am out of Wikipedia. Don't want to come back again.

Proposed deletion of Bribery case of Sheikh Hasina

The article Bribery case of Sheikh Hasina has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Concern over Notability and News like content

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Abc-wtf-def (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits are being continuously and systematically deleted by organized Wikipedia cabals. Rather than improving the contents, they are working together to delete legitimate contents using various excuses.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Max Semenik (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Abc-wtf-def (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is not necessary coz,

I have used some copyrighted materials which was not intentional. I tried to paraphrase, but I understood that was inadequate.
I have understood that sockpuppeting is not allowed in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has proper mechanism to detect sockpuppeting.

I swear,

In future, I will take proper care in using copyrighted materials.
In future, I will never try to use sock-puppeting again.

N.B. If I am not unblocked, organized Wikipedia cabals will revert all my edits.

Decline reason:

Sigh, you were doing so well up until that "organized Wikipedia cabals" thing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Abc-wtf-def (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is not necessary coz, * I have used some copyrighted materials which was not intentional. I tried to paraphrase, but I understood that was inadequate. * I have understood that sockpuppeting is not allowed in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has proper mechanism to detect sockpuppeting. I swear, * In future, I will take proper care in using copyrighted materials. * In future, I will never try to use sock-puppeting again.

Decline reason:

"I have used some copyrighted materials which was not intentional"... this is just not true. Not only did you violate WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FU, you maliciously violated WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK in order to continue to do so. Additionally, I looked through a significant number of your edits. They were, without exception, totally inappropriate. At this point, your best bet is WP:SO which requires six months of zero edits. In all honesty, though, your contributions have been so massively inappropriate and so massively in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND that I find it hard to imagine anyone unblocking you without significant effort on your part to convince us your future edits would be totally different from your existing edits. That's certainly possible; for example, you could voluntarily agree to a WP:TBAN on all the areas you've contributed so far (roughly, "politics in the Indian subcontinent, considered broadly"). Yamla (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2017 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of AB Bank Loan Scam

Hello Abc-wtf-def,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged AB Bank Loan Scam for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, AB_Bank.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Oriental Bank Loan Scam

Hello, Abc-wtf-def. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Oriental Bank Loan Scam, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of BASIC Bank scam

Hello, Abc-wtf-def. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, BASIC Bank scam, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Railway bribery scandal of Bangladesh

The article Railway bribery scandal of Bangladesh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Written like a news article

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of racist attack on Africans in India listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of racist attack on Africans in India. Since you had some involvement with the List of racist attack on Africans in India redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rathoa Haryam Bridge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rathoa Haryam Bridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathoa Haryam Bridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BFDIBebble (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]