User talk:J. Papaharini

October 2018

Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Anwar Shaikh (critic of Islam) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Unexplained reverts are disruptive. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "ItsSugmaDique", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it sounds like "suck my dick" and is therefore may be considered offensive. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 6ix9ine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bodega (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Delonte West. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jaddanbai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. ceranthor 18:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am very sorry for my actions and have requested to be unblocked on my user talk page. ItsSugmaDique (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have also appealed for my username to be changed as I admit that it is profane and inappropriate. ItsSugmaDique (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

J. Papaharini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

To the entire Wikipedia community, I sincerely apologize for my disruptive actions and the profane nature of my username. I am deeply sorry for offending other contributors, implying personal attacks, and/or making harmonious editing difficult through my username. I admit to my wrongdoing and request reconsideration because I have reformed myself and regret my actions. Wikipedia is big part of my life, and now it’s void. I will never repeat these actions again, as I am very amenable to changing my username to something completely appropriate and acceptable. I am dedicated to quality of information on Wiki pages and this is evidenced by my lengthy history of reputable, sourced contributions. My wish is to propose improvements to articles and I will take firm steps so this issue does not happen again by choosing this username which is just my first initial and middle name. I intend to contribute extensively to Wikipedia if I am unblocked by preventing vandalism and maintenance.

Decline reason:

Per below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have globally renamed ItsSugmaDique to J. Papaharini, but before you are considered for unblock please explain your connection with User:SlovonManob. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any connection with that user as far as I am concerned. His username is profane like something along the lines of my old username so I can see why you’d think it’s connected to me somehow but I legitimately do not know who that is. J. Papaharini (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's obviously not true. The behavioral evidence (which is more than just a similar style of username) was convincing enough on its own, but the use of multiple accounts has now been technically confirmed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2018 (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/J. Papaharini, 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.

— Newslinger talk 23:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. -- Scott (talk) 08:26, 25 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I sincerely apologize to the whole Wikipedia community, as I know I have majorly breached community trust and for that I am sorry. I understand now that sock-puppetry is a disgusting violation of community standards and policies. I was foolishly under the impression that multiple are allowed for any reason and that is my own wrongdoing and for that I am deeply sorry. My only intention ever was to just make reliable contributions to Wiki pages. I admit to my wrongdoing and request reconsideration because I have reformed myself by overviewing along with familiarizing myself with Wikipedia guidelines and policies and regret my actions wholeheartedly. Wikipedia is big part of my life, and my only goal is to further it and make it better. I will never repeat these actions again, as I understand the consequences and mindset against sock-puppetry. The consequences can lead to revocation of my Wiki privileges for life and that is the last thing I would ever want. I am dedicated to quality of information on Wiki pages and this is evidenced by my lengthy history of reputable, sourced contributions. My wish is to propose improvements to articles and I will take firm steps so this issue does not happen again by only using one account and I can promise that that you will not see any activity out of those other accounts. I intend to contribute extensively to Wikipedia if I am unblocked by preventing vandalism and maintaining articles with quality information with sources.

Decline reason:

"evidenced by my lengthy history of reputable, sourced contributions". I see numerous warnings, here and on your other accounts, about your unsourced edits. Also, pointless edits. It's not clear that you are a net positive to Wikipedia even aside from your inappropriate usernames and violations of WP:SOCK. You are welcome to make another unblock request, but I think it's time to be a bit more straight-forward with your multiple violations and inappropriate editing. Yamla (talk) 15:18, 25 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I sincerely apologize to the whole Wikipedia community, as I know I have majorly breached community trust and for that I am sorry. I understand now that sock-puppetry and unsourced editing is a disgusting violation of community standards and policies. I was foolishly under the impression that multiple accounts are allowed for any reason and that is my own wrongdoing and for that I am deeply sorry. My only intention ever was to just make reliable contributions to Wiki pages, and it was my imprudent decision to do it sometimes without sources. I admit to my wrongdoing and request reconsideration because I have reformed myself by overviewing Wikipedia guidelines and policies and regret my actions wholeheartedly. Wikipedia is big part of my life, and my only goal is to further it and make it better. I will never repeat these actions again, as I understand the consequences and mindset against sock-puppetry and unsourced editing. The consequences can lead to revocation of my Wiki privileges for life and that is the last thing I would ever want. I am dedicated to quality of information on Wiki pages and this is evidenced by the fact I have made reputable, sourced edits. I have made unsourced edits before but they were in good faith and not intended to be vandalism. My wish is to propose improvements to articles and I will take firm steps so this issue does not happen again by only using one account and I can promise that that you will not see any activity out of those other accounts. I intend to contribute extensively to Wikipedia if I am unblocked by preventing vandalism and maintaining articles with quality information with sources.

Decline reason:

I think you need to take the standard offer by stepping away for six months. You still haven't addressed your essential dishonesty, as represented by the lie you removed after being called on it in this edit . --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:44, 25 December 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.

I have revoked talk page access from this account. The Standard offer is open, but the degree of deception in this case makes me think it is unlikely to succeed. In any case, such a request would need to be made from your original account, so you have no legitimate need for this one any more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]