User talk:BurhanHyder

Welcome!

Hello, BurhanHyder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, I'm The Mighty Glen. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi 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/Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi 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. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Syed Akbar Jaipuri) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Syed Akbar Jaipuri.

User:Rosguill while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Please put citations next to the claims they support–slapping 9 citations together at the beginning of the article does not help readers verify the content. Additionally, the Life and Education section needs to be rewritten with more neutral language.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Yousuf Shah Chak, 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 the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Asif Tariq Bhat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Asif Tariq Bhat 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/Asif Tariq Bhat 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/BurhanHyder, 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.

─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurhanHyder. 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 ~~~~}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:36, 9 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't use multiple account to make any contributions, I only own one account, . The article Asif Tariq Bhat had citations from credible media houses registered lawfully in India BurhanHyder (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the clear evidence discussed in the SPI. Even if you personally only have one account, that only makes this meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 12 July 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

In addition I had shared the link of the page for proofreading with the person who had asked me to make this page Asif Tariq Bhat, I don't know whether he did it or didn't, I'm completely unaware of it

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be an unblock request. Or at least, that does not seem to directly address the clear evidence discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurhanHyder/Archive. Yamla (talk) 20:24, 12 July 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.

I fixed your request so it displays properly. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 12 July 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).

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

Request reason:

How do you assume that it was me who initiated this Sock puppetry and it is not someone else who did that without my knowledge ? BurhanHyder (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't an unblock request either. I strongly suggest you read WP:GAB, and write a proper unblock request next time, or you risk having your access to this page removed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 13 July 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to request the unblocking of my account, which was barred due to suspected sock-puppetry or unauthorised editing. I would like to explain the circumstances that led to this situation and assure you that it was unintentional.

I had shared a link to one of my articles with a colleague for proofreading. Unbeknownst to me, they edited the article directly on Wikipedia instead of providing feedback separately. As a result, it appeared as if multiple accounts were involved in editing the same content, which triggered the sock-puppetry suspicion.

I deeply regret this misunderstanding and any inconvenience it may have caused. I have since discussed this with my colleague and made it clear that they should not edit my contributions directly. I have also taken steps to ensure that this situation does not occur again in the future.

I value the opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia and fully respect its policies and guidelines. I sincerely apologise for any confusion and inconvenience caused by this incident. I humbly request that you consider unblocking my account so I can continue to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community.

Additionally, I have been blocked for a considerable amount of time, and during this period, I have reflected on the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I am committed to following all rules and contributing constructively.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration.

Sincerely,

BurhanHyder

Decline reason:

I think you've had enough tries. The AI chat bot you used to write this doesn't seem to even understand the definition of sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:50, 11 August 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.

GPTZero gives a 100% for whether this was an AI-generated request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming this isn't AI, at no time did the sockpuppet accounts you're suspected of being connected to make an action that even remotely resembled "proofreading" your contributions, so whoever wrote it, the explanation appears to be implausible. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.