User talk:Khondoker Jobair
Khondoker Jobair, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Khondoker Jobair! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC) |
Ways to improve Baş Kadın
[edit]Hello, Khondoker Jobair,
Thanks for creating Baş Kadın! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
Please add your references.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Boleyn (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
[edit]
Hello, I'm Utcursch. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chomchom without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You removed the sourced content "who was a native of Ballia district in Uttar Pradesh, India". utcursch | talk 02:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
[[Alu Bhorta] moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Alu Bhorta, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hitro talk 11:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You've got Talkback!
[edit]
Message added 15:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hitro talk 15:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Mahidevran, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Khondoker Jobair (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I had made some serious mistakes by breaking Wikipedia's law as I was new. So, I maybe did something unknowingly and I got blocked on this account-Khondoker Jobair. At that time I was new and was unaware about wikipedia's rules, so I created a new account thinking that this will be ok. This time also the account was blocked but for a different reason-sock puppetry, of which I didn't had any idea. So, I kept making the mistakes again and again. But now I am much more experienced and familliar to wikipedia's rules and regulations. Now, I know the "appealing for unblock" option. I promise that I will abide by every single rule of Wikipedia. Please, Yamaguchi先生 help me to unblock my account -Khondoker Jobair
Decline reason:
Sure, a single mistaken violation of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE might be excusable. But that's not what happened here. Five confirmed sockpuppet accounts and another suspected. You knew perfectly well when you set up accounts to evade your block in October, 2019, as you had previously been caught and blocked for this in April 2019. Just as bad, you continued with your inappropriate edits with your illicit accounts. No, nothing here justifies lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
Khondoker Jobair (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yamla, I stated I didn't know about sock puppetry for a big time. And when I learned that, by then, it was very late. As I was not getting unblocked for a long time I thought, there is no hope. If I create another one and do no violation, this will not count as sock puppetry. And this time (the one you are suspecting) the account was not even created by me. It was my mate who was just wandering how an wikipedia account functions. Please, I want to be back on wikipedia. Everything has a last chance.
Look, someone is blocked on wikipedia. What should he do then now? He should appeal, wait. But I didn't know that. So, what's gonna bring me back? Please give me a last chance. If I do anything wrong, the option named block is just before your eyes. Please, Yamaguchi先生, Yamla do consider and give me a last chance. Khondoker Jobair (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I would suggest waiting six months without making any edits from any account (including anonymously), then making an appeal as per the standard offer. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 07:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
- O Still Small, Will it work? If I don't make any edit (even not anonymously) for six months and then I appeal for unblock, will I be unblocked?Yamaguchi先生, Yamla Is it actual?
- You would have to make another appeal at the end, then it would be up to the reviewing admin and the blocking admin. But a clean sheet of six months should help. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- O Still Small, Ok, I'll resist myself for 6 months. Hope this will convince them to understand.Khondoker Jobair (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Khondoker Jobair (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User:Yamaguchi先生 and User:Voice of Clam, I again humbly request you guys to look into the matter of my unblock. For the consideration, as O Still Small suggested I didn't do even a single edit or opening a duplicate account. Hope this clear sheet of almost 1 year will be able to satisfy you. I am looking forward to you guys. Khondoker Jobair (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No responses for some time, so it appears the editor may have disengaged with this process. Feel free to open a new request if you agree to the conditions listed below. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
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 has been sitting in the queue for a while, so may as well move it along to pass/fail:
- Khondoker Jobair, for this appeal to succeed you need to explain why the actual reason for your block won't happen again. This is not just sockpuppetry, it's the original disruptive editing. Please be aware there needs to be more than just a vague assurance - that would be unconvincing given your past conduct. What do you understand about Wikipedia editing policies that you didn't understand then? What specifically would you want to edit if you were unblocked? Have to say am tending toward declining the appeal because experience has shown that disruptive sockmasters rarely reform. But hope springs eternal.
- Yamaguchi先生, pinged you as the blocking admin in case you have any views.
- @GeneralNotability: randomly selected you from the checkuser list, as this is a CU-block but the original CU is no longer in place. Hope that's okay and please do flick this to anyone else for review if preferred. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Euryalus, from a technical perspective, I do not see any socks here. You may unblock at your discretion if you think it's appropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Khondoker Jobair, over to you to comment on dot point 1 above. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)