User talk:AdilSwatai

Welcome!

Hello, AdilSwatai, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Munni Sanchez, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Munni Sanchez

The article Munni Sanchez has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Munni Sanchez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Munni Sanchez 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/Munni Sanchez until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi there, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. Blogs, like the one you referenced in this edit at Armeena Khan are unsuitable for inclusion, because anybody with an internet connection can create a blog and call themselves an expert on any given subject. We don't allow user-generated content at Wikipedia, and that includes sites like TV.com, IMDb, Wikia, discussion forums, the comment section of various websites, or even Wikipedia itself. Content needs to be supported by reliable published sources that have well-established reputations for fact-checking, and clear editorial policies. Faceless blogs run by who-knows-whom, clearly do not fit the bill. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Hi Mr Cyphoidbomb! before & after my blockage, I haven't committed any thing wrong. If you review my earlier accounts contributions, you will come to know about my share to Wikipedia. I had always contributed positively to tourism pages and edited those pages in which a paki punjabi nationlist had gushed in wrong information without any proper references. But at that time, due to landline prolem in my net connection, I was unable to present my case properly, that's why i came under the fire of one sided decision. So, I am a positive contributor to wikipedia and please kindly lift my ban.Thanks AdilSwatai (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked because of your edit contributions; as the block notice states, you are blocked for sockpuppetry, and this is the issue which you must address in any further unblock request.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

AdilSwatai, there is very little that's positive about "The Top ... [attracts] a lot of tourists to its lap for a cool feeling in the sizzling heat of summer." Somehow you thought that was appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Or this edit where you think it's appropriate to describe the weather as "pleasant", as if that's a fact, not an opinion. That demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension about what Wikipedia is for. Advertising, and non-neutral, flowery language is not what Wikipedia is for. Content you added here is supported by this faceless blog. This demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension about the sort of sources Wikpedia considers to be reliable, especially when contributing potentially defamatory content in an article about a living person. So yes, you have committed "wrong", you have not always contributed positively, and you have used multiple accounts, like Adilswatai, Power22, Tusikhanzir, and AdilSwatai to continue your disruptive editing, the latter being the reason why I have indeffed this newest account.

Note that you, the editor behind these accounts, are not welcome to edit at Wikipedia so long as your original block is active. Any edit that can be attributed to you may be removed by any editor for any reason, with no regard for whether it is an improvement or not. This means also that articles you've created after your initial block may be deleted on sight. Now, you are free to file an unblock request at your first account, but considering you have continued to engage in sockpuppetry, you have an uphill battle to try to convince an admin that you're here to be helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]