User talk:IrtazaNGD

Welcome!

Hello, IrtazaNGD, 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 take 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! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

On a further note, make sure that the source you cite actually mentions the material it's being cited for. For example, this website does not mention Seventh Day Adventists or their history, so it really doesn't work as a citation for the claim that SDAs have advocated what they consider healthy eating since the 1860s. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just given you another warning, but you have once again reference spammed the same website in an area that any literate person can tell is inappropriate. The page you cited does not say anything about George Osborne anywhere in the domain. If you want to be unblocked, in addition to promising never to spam again, you will have to explain that you understand that references have to actually have anything to do with the material they're being cited for. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:09, 9 August 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).

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

Request reason:

iam sorry its just a mistake want to check the editing and i took wrong page plz unblock me — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrtazaNGD (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

Spamming inappropriate links is bad enough; transparently lying about it does not help in the least. I see no reason to expect that unblocking you would improve the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 20:43, 9 August 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.

So you accidentally replaced the link here with one that has absolutely nothing to do with George Osborne, and then you accidentally revised the date? And I suppose you previously accidentally replaced the link here with one that has absolutely nothing to do with Seventh Day Adventists before clearing out everything else so the only information people could see is your spam link? Yeah, right. If you really were that incompetent, it'd still be a problem -- competence is required.

Now, if you promise to never link to Charaag.com again, and you promise to stop adding citations that have nothing to do with the article, then maybe you can get one more chance. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]