User talk:FifthHouseGuy

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FifthHouseGuy reported by User:GSS (Result: ). Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not being disruptive. These are well-respected sources in Kashmir press, independent, reliable and respected. I have not only made Naveed Qazi, but numerous other articles for creation. I am not a paid editor, its a sheer accusation on me. Please unblock me as soon as possible.

Decline reason:

As per C.Fred below. You were clearly being disruptive. Yamla (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2018 (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.

You were told that you may not remove the AfD template from the Naveed Qazi article. You acknowledged the warning. Then you removed the template again. How can you say that isn't disruptive? —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this was originally a spamu block

Looks like I erred in unblocking. Looks like the talkpage has been blanked. Strongly considering an indef block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim and C.Fred: and looks like he now moved on to Stonehousekeeper. I can't see his deleted edits but seems connected to Draft:Naveed Qazi. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems probable that, in addition to the other problems with your editing, you have been evading your block by using another account, and that you have used that account for editing which you fully intended to be disruptive. It is very likely indeed that you will be blocked indefinitely if you continue in the ways in which you have been editing, and I could not criticise any administrator who decided you have already gone far enough for that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: please see 2405:205:3:6fcc::a0c:80b0. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: :@Dlohcierekim and C.Fred: Please recheck your knowledge and facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and after my editing experience, i can't deny that Wikipedia is currently is run by corrupt and self-centred bigots intended to ruin the knowledge process of the internet. More than one individual can use an IP, and admins have made accusations of us being paid editors, when we are not. You can deliberately creating edit wars on Wikipedia, an open source portal, for which you people should be punished. Why don't you first delete thousands of unsourced, unverifiable pages than deleting this page, Naveed Qazi instead? An individual who has written two books, nearly 800 pages in total, and sourced by independent, reliable sources fails WP:AUTHOR test, while other pages which are written like essays, unsourced and uncited, are fine?!

Talk page access revoked, block restarted and extended to give you a chance to cool off. When you come back, I strongly advise you stop ranting like this or you are likely to find yourself blocked again, likely indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a venue for promotional writing. We admins humbly and thoughtfully implement the will of the community. The above rant only affirms that my decision to unblock this user was a bad one. For that, I apologize to the community I serve.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry but it feels really bad to get blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. From now on, I will follow all the standard norms. Promise. I request you guys to please unblock my IP. From now on, I will be responsible for editing as per required by the portal. I will make afC for individuals, organisations who I am not connected to, or paid from, and will check notability and referencing guidelines accurately.

Decline reason:

(I declined an unblock request for a previous block) You've had multiple previous chances. Rather than abiding by Wikipedia's policies, you set up sockpuppet accounts to evade your block. You've gone out of your way to show you should not be allowed to edit here and are right on the edge of a ban under WP:3X. Your best hope here, and this is a slim hope given your terrible behaviour so far, is to wait for at least six months without any edits (via this account or any other), then apply under WP:SO. Yamla (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2018 (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.

You are done here. Talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kashmir Images for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kashmir Images 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/Kashmir Images 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 until the discussion has finished.

𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]