User talk:Mughal Lohar
Welcome!
[edit]
|
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Physics in medieval Islam
[edit]Physics in medieval Islam has a history. Unfortunately, it was on the wrong version when you made your edits; I've reverted back to the short version (see extensive talk page discussion) which lost your additions William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- And again. You need to talk, unless you just want your contributions there to disappear William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- And again. Is there some reason you're ignoring that big orange bar across the top of your screen saying "you have new messages"? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
why wipe out everything? There were many outstanding references in the articles (excluding the ones i brought)
- Did you read the link in the version of the page I restored? Ie, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup. There is a lot to follow there, I admit. THe basic problem is that what Jagged85 wrote is unreliable. You are welcome to carefully go over everything he wrote, personally verify that all the refs are correct, and then restore what you find to be correct. But what you may not do is assume that the text is correct merely because it has plausible looking references. Experience has taught us that much of J85's stuff is badly misleading and wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Who is Jagged85? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs)
- Please sign your posts (even on your talk page); not to do so is impolite. You do this with four tildes, thus: ~~~~. As to who is J85: as you might guess from its title, if you follow the link I've just provided, above, you'll go to a page that talks about cleaning up his work. There you will find a link to his user page. However, the cleanup page, and the links therein, are more informative William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- ok, ok...but how long is the article going to be kept empty...and the facts of history concealed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs)
- Please sign your posts (even on your talk page); not to do so is impolite. You do this with four tildes, thus: ~~~~. The article isn't empty. It is much shorter than it used to be, of course. There is no time period for this. The old content won't be restored, until someone checks it. A more likely method is to rebuild the article from scratch William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- ok, ok...but how long is the article going to be kept empty...and the facts of history concealed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs)
ok apologies to you if you feel offended :)
Talk pages
[edit]When you want to raise a new topic on a talk page, please click "new section" at the top of that page, and sign your comment by adding a space then four tildes on the last line of your comment. Editors are used to new comments being at the bottom, which is what "new section" does. See WP:TP. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī
[edit]I removed your "reference" for the Physics section in the Abu Rayhan al-Biruni article. Wikipedia can not be used to reference other wikipedia articles. Please see reliable sources for more information concerning references. I added a citation needed tag to the paragraph in hopes the section will not be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please Use Edit Summaries
[edit]Hi Mughal_Lohar,
I see that many of your recent edits don't include edit summaries. To avoid having your edits reverted, and to help other editors keep up with the articles they are interested in, it is good practice to write a brief summary of each edit. If an edit is addition of material that has previously been removed, please discuss it on the talk page for the relevant article first. If you have any questions, let me know.
Dialectric (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Unreliable Sources
[edit]As Johnuniq has pointed out on Talk:Physics_in_medieval_Islam#What?, Muslimheritage.org is an unreliable source and cannot be used as the sole source for history of science claims. If you find something on Muslimheritage that you find interesting, I would suggest you confirm it by searching out a citation to some unbiased, published work, ideally a work of history scholarship, and cite that work rather than a website shown to make incorrect historical claims. Dialectric (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You may want to check your sources, Alfonso VI of León and Castile, did not live during the 14th century. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Your edits to Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī and Mathematics in Medieval Islam
[edit]Hi. Thank you for all your industry in adding content to Wikipedia. Unfortunately this edit and this one do not satisfy Wikipedia's policy on proper attribution of material copied from other Wikipedia articles or other Wikimedia projects. As a relatively new user you may not have been aware of this policy, but you should definitely familiarise yourself with it and the policy on violation of copyright before again copying material from another Wikipedia article or Wikimedia project. Not providing proper attribution for such material is both plagiarism and a violation of the original author's copyright, and repeated violation of Wikipedia's policies on the matter could lead to your being blocked from editing.
Another problem with copying material from Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects, even when that material is properly attributed, is that those are not reliable sources. You, not the original author of anything you may have copied, are responsible for the verifiability of any material wich you add to Wikipedia, and unless you have personally checked that every single statement in any text you have copied is verifiable you are not meeting that responsibility. As an illustration of the dangers of failing to do this, I will point out that the statement "He [Al-Biruni] also made use of algebra in his calculation", which was included in the material you copied in the edits referred to above, seems to be a load of codswallop. I have now checked Jamil Ali's English translation of Al-Biruni's calculation, and it contains no algebra whatsoever. Al-Biruni's derivation of the formula for the Earth's radius is entirely geometric, and his application of it to his data uses nothing more than elementary arithmetic and the evaluation of a sine.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the "references" you placed in the the article Averroes.[1] Wikipedia can not be used to reference other wikipedia articles. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit summaries and sources
[edit]Please provide edit summaries. Many of your edits involve removal or major modification of content without any specified reason. Also, when you're adding content, please use reliable references to support it. Google group messages, random YouTube videos or Google Images don't classify as reliable sources. utcursch | talk 09:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please stop inserting fake references to support your claims, as you did here. The page doesn't mention that Shah Alam II was a commander or support the casualties figures. Can you please tell me which sentence on the page supports your claims? utcursch | talk 11:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Sources and disruptive editing
[edit]You do not seem to be paying much attention to the comments on this talk page recently. Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY and let me know if you understand them or have any problems with them. Please also assure us that you will no longer use Wikipedia articles as references, self-published sources or blogs. Your misuse of sources and lack of response to complaints is approaching the point where it may be seen as disruptive and you could be blocked. Hopefully that won't happen. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
i'll find the sources wait...
- You seem to still be using blogs and other sources that don't meet our criteria, judging from the recent revert at Orange. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Editing logged out
[edit]Please be careful as you have been editing under what I presume is your IP address, 182.182.2.144 - Beck is selfpublished and should not be used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
hmm...i tried to confirm it with another more authentic source[1]
November 2011
[edit]
Your addition to Aurangzeb has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You have been told before about using YouTube, unless you can provide evidence that a video is not a copyright violation you cannot link it, and you have continued to add the same video. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note also that you must follow our guidelines at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia when copying from other articles. This has been explained to you before. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- You have re-added material that was removed from Aurangzeb by other editors several times now. Multiple reverts of the same or very similar content may be a violation of the Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule. When there is a dispute between editors about the validity of content, it should be resolved on the talk page before the material is re-added. I suggest you wait to hear other editors' comments on the talk page and reply there first. Dialectric (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Fake reference
[edit]The reference that you added here and here actually disprove your claim that Shah Alam II participated in the battle. From your link:
- "Ghazi-ud-din had put Alamgir II to death in 1759, replacing him with a puppet, but after the battle of Panipat, Ahmad Shah nominated a son of Alamgir II as emperor, with the title of Shah Alam (1761–1803)."
This implies that Shah Alam II actually became emperor after the Battle of Panipat. The reference doesn't mention anything about Shah Alam II participating in the battle or the casualties.
I appreciate you trying to contribute to history-related articles, but adding inaccurate content supported by fake references might actually get you blocked. utcursch | talk 06:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Another instance -- please at least provide an edit summary. And if you're adding some content, don't remove the existing well-referenced content without any reasonable explanation.
- I think you've made very good contributions to some history-related articles, but you really need to read Wikipedia guidelines like WP:RS. utcursch | talk 06:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Good comment. Mughal Lohar, you must really start using edit summaries for all your edits, be more specific about your concerns when you post to a talk page, and above all stop removing well-referenced comment with no explanation and adding stuff referenced to bad sources such as zombo.net which is quite obviously a search engine providing material from Wikipedia, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, blogs, etc. If you don't change I will take the issue to WP:ANI. You should also read WP:NPOV by the way. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
ok sure...
- Your additions to Fatah Muhammad include several partial references. Please use full titles and authors' names when adding references to publications. The references as written are essentially unverifiable. Dialectric (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Removal of content
[edit]Why did you remove the following cited information from Aurangzeb: "... but the rule was unstable. Aurangzeb imposed Sharia law over the entire empire, imposed tax on his Hindu subjects, destroyed thousands of Hindu shrines and executed Guru Tegh Bahadur."? If you continue making unexplained edits like this, which appear to violate WP:NPOV, you will eventually get blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether. --JaGatalk 15:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Let the respective readers judge the biography individually...that particular statement is clearly bias and one-sided...
- Clearly, based on what? Was Sharia not imposed, the guru not executed? Look, I'm not pro- or anti-Mughal, but I do believe in NPOV, and I need to know you aren't trying to suppress an unfavorable POV. --JaGatalk 17:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention to surpress anything...but my question is why you you draw a narrow conclusion...before the article is even read...i believe it is very important to take a neutral stand and not find ways to judge people without even going into the details...i think such behavior or written material can easily be catagorized as bigotry and hostility.
- You speak of the importance of taking a neutral stand, but I see you making seemingly non-neutral edits, and refusing to explain your reasoning. If you don't want to explain your recent decisions about Aurangzeb, that's fine; the article has been corrected. But in the future, if you want to remove sourced content from articles, you must be prepared to explain why, and back up that reasoning with reliable sources. --JaGatalk 17:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
you continue to support a statement that is not neutral or in any way informative...you condemn me of making this article more readable and user-friendly...(for your information) i have stated many times that i do not intend to be bias or support bigotry in any possible way.
Edit summaries
[edit]You have been asked to use edit summaries and still you do not use them. What's the problem? It's a vital form of communication on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Your addition to Aurangzeb has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Battle of Haldighati, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. utcursch | talk 04:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Your addition to Aurangzeb has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. I've removed all of your edits to this article as there was too much copyright violation to sort it out easily. I note that you haven't responded to my earlier warning about the copyvio I found at that time. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aurangzeb, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The addition of copyvio material is very serious, and you have been warned repeatedly about it. JaGatalk 19:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Aurangzeb, you may be blocked from editing. You removed a large amount of text, again without using an edit summary and clearly because you didn't like it's pov, breaking our NPOV policy. If you do not start using edit summaries and stop this mass blanking of text you don't like, you will be taken to WP:ANI Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit] | This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC) |
- To be clear, this is because you continued to edit war while logged out after receiving full warnings. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- And if you have trouble finding it, it should be at WP:ANI#Mughal Lohar. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I forget to log in sometimes, but this does not mean that i am involved in any disruptive incidents (kindly :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs)
- It's OK, if you forget to log in sometimes. But you're making the same changes that have been disputed by other users while logged out -- that might be seen as sockpuppetry attempts. Also, you're still not providing edit summaries while editing -- removing content without providing any explanation might be seen as disruptive editing, esp. when you do it often. Please see Help:Edit summary -- all you've do is type in a comment/reason for the changes you're making in the small box above the "Save Page" button. utcursch | talk 04:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Asad Malik Hast, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please provide sources when you create articles. Eeekster (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sidi Yaqub
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sidi Yaqub requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. OIFA (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Disucssion
[edit]Hi Mughal Lohar. I think it might help your cause if you discussed some of your changes to Suleiman the Magnificent on the relevant Talkpage, or if you at least explained your actions in edits summaries, as you have been urged to do in the past. Otherwise, your unexplained removal of sourced content and changes to images of long standing in a featured article seem a bit odd and are more likely to be reverted. Talking to other editors and explaining your actions are usually more helpful than not - it can help avoid a lot of misunderstanding. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Some of the pictures featured in the previous Suleiman the Magnificent article were really weird and completely distorted reality...the long nose the very strange headdress, it was perhaps racist in some ways, particularly in their manner of depiction.
- See, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, it's just that I don't know which pictures you're referring to. You made a number of changes, and without explanation, it's hard to tell which ones might be worth keeping or worth changing. Some of the pictures are famous in their own right as the best-know depictions of Suleiman; others may be of debatable value. The important thing is to cnosult the article and confer with other editors regarding the changes.Kafka Liz (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- And I'm not very pleased with your characterization of my edits as racist. [2]. Can we not have a conversation on this without mudslinging? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Mughal Lohar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I can assure you my intent was not mudslinging kindly, my main point was that such depictions as they are in that article inspire racism and create hostilities and wrongful stereotypes of innocent and ordinary people probably based on racial perceptions and obstruct facts and reality :)
Decline reason:
There is nothing in this request that convinces me you intend to correct the behavior that led to your block if it is listed. Enough is enough and you're clearly missing the point, so following this message I will revoke access to your talk page. I would recommend you carefully reread the guide to appealing blocks, and if desired following that, you may contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee for any further block appeals. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:17, 10 December 2011 (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.
Muhammad Shah, November 2011
[edit]Hi, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in the article Muhammad Shah you supplied bare URLs to Google Books searches on two terms "Muhammed Shah" and "Sharif of Mecca". I've converted these to book citations.
However, the google searches only bring up snippets from the pages, which is far from ideal: you really need access to the complete book and to specify the page/s in the book that you want to reference.
It's not clear which statements/s in the article the references apply to, and I'm not convinced that these references support what you've added to the article.
I only have a minor interest in the article, and little time, so I'll have to leave someone else to sort this out.
Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Have marked the citations with "verification needed". Esowteric+Talk 10:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
ANI notification
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Hi, I can't see how this snippet view (ref 17, edit diff) supports any of the following text from the article:
"The three generals were of equal rank and hence Shah Jahan and Inayat Khan[17], ensured unity and co-operation amongst them ...."
The only snippets that show are about such things as nuts, dried fruit and prostitutes, not army commanders, at least on my PC monitor, which makes verification very difficult. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 19:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:Citing sources, WP:Link rot and WP:Verifiability. Esowteric+Talk 20:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I asked an experience editor, Jayen466 about the use of snippets, and this is what he said on his talk page:
- "It's often possible to find a text match in a Google Books search which is shown as bold text in the Google Books search listing. However, if you click on the search hit and the book has snippet view only, the snippet shown will only be the nearest one available to the relevant passage that Google Books found. Sometimes you're lucky that your search string is in a displayable snippet, sometimes not. Generally, it doesn't make sense to link to a snippet display if the snippet doesn't show the relevant text. The book may well contain a relevant passage on that same page though. However, there is another thing that has to be said: if you haven't got the physical book, and you don't have a Google preview spanning several full pages in context, it is quite risky to add anything to a Wikipedia article just based on having seen a snippet, either in the Google Books search listing or in snippet view. Context may be all-important (the book may quote a discredited theory, or you may fail to realise that the whole passage is intended as humour, etc.). So it's not a way of working that should ever be used, except in the most straightforward cases (like finding a birth date in a reputable dictionary of biography with snippet view). These days, Amazon (linked to from Google Books) has Look Inside enabled for many books. Using both Google Books and Amazon in tandem is often worthwhile. --JN466 20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)" Esowteric+Talk 09:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I asked an experience editor, Jayen466 about the use of snippets, and this is what he said on his talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you reply here to the ANI discussion and someone will copy it to that page. You need to respond to the concerns expressed and say what changes you will make in your editing. Dougweller (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Mughal Lohar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i honestly didn't know anything about the snippets law
Decline reason:
It isn't a question of a "law" referring specifically to "snippets", it's quite simply that giving a link to a source that doesn't support the statement it is given as a reference to is not helpful. However, you were blocked for "persistent disruptive editing", which includes edit warring, lack of communication, and other problems. Try re-reading the various messages that have been posted to this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2011 (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.
- Thanks for replying, Mughal. I'll copy this to the AN/I page and ask someone to look at it. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Mughal Lohar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Okay, sure no more edit warring :)
Decline reason:
I'm not sure how I can decline such a sincere request that is obviously based on WP:GAB (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:26, 29 November 2011 (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.
Sinbad Edits (false captions on illustrations)
[edit]I came here to comment on edits by Mughal Lohar to Sinbad the Sailor, and discovered that he has already been blocked. I previously had removed a number of illustrations from that article that were irrelevant, original research, or false captions. I used detailed edit summaries and left an entry in the discussion page. Mughal Lohar restored some of the same illustrations and false captions (not by reverting, but by actual edits), and used completely inadequate edit summaries.
So, if the question of unblocking is ever re-opened, this might be considered. Mughal Lohar used false captions to mis-identify the content of illustrations he added, making them look related even though they were not. Taquito1 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Mughal Lohar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the images that i added meant to illustrate the types of creatures and animals mentioned in the story for example the fish with a parrot-like beak or a horned creature or elephants and ivory but i had no intent to mis-identify or falsify (maybe i should have added references)...i think even tried to add more relevant pictures such as pictures of the types of ships and islands and ports...but i assure you...that those edits were purely meant to be constructive (kindly :)
Decline reason:
This does not address the reason for your block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:47, 7 December 2011 (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.
- The above is not an unblock request. Using the unblock template for this kind of commentary can lead to removal of access to your talkpage. You'll want to re-read WP:GAB and really try again (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
New SPI
[edit]See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sridhar100. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
Hi. 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/Mughal Lohar, 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.
Abecedare (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]Hi. 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/Mughal Lohar, 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.
Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Asad Malik Hast has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No citations provided and none found on search. (Article was created by banned editor prior to SPI cases.)
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)