Catherine0007
Catherine here to help out deserving people to be recognised on wikipedia!!!Catherine0007 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Catherine0007, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Catherine0007! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation: Rani Hazarika (September 1)
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rani Hazarika and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rani Hazarika, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Tanveer Ghazi (September 1)
edit - If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tanveer Ghazi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tanveer Ghazi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Speedy deletion nomination of Ali Peter John
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 Ali Peter John, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ... discospinster talk 00:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome!
editHello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Kabul Bukhari (October 2)
edit - If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kabul Bukhari and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kabul Bukhari, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Asim Riaz 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/Asim Riaz 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. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Karan Singh Randhawa for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karan Singh Randhawa 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/Karan Singh Randhawa 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. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Altamash Faridi for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Altamash Faridi 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/Altamash Faridi 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. Meeanaya (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
May I know why I am disabled to create any new articles user:Alison user:AGK user:Gorillawarfare please intervene to help me out.
Looking forward to hear from my above check user’s and arbitrators Catherine0007 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Catherine0007
editI believe I am not been heard even after requesting to honourable check users and arbitrators to unfreeze my account. CheckUserAdminsArbitrators Catherine0007 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am accused as Sockpuppet of some unknown user with out any legitimate reason. Catherine0007 (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui 雲水 14:14, 31 October 2019 (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.
Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear (@Yunshui:) As you know (@Darkwind:) has blocked me and I request you both with this reason that I am an independent and individual content creator who loves to create content on different subject which include deserving artists and people who have made a name for themselves and are a source of inspiration. I am no way affiliated to any username or organisations. And hence I just wanted to put it on record and writing that anyone who has been the reason for blocking my account, isn’t anyway associated with me. I am based out of Mumbai and my works and content has been proof of what i stand for. And I have spent a lot of time and efforts to create content for people who value from this account. It is therefore unreasonable to block me for any reasons whatsoever. I have maintained integrity, and Wiki policies while creating content. It would be appreciable if my account is restored ASAPCatherine0007 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have not addressed the fact you created promotional articles about the same people (yes, plural) as the blocked sockpuppets. MER-C 14:09, 12 November 2019 (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.
Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear (@MER-C:) the moment I got to know I have created pages which were already created by blocked user in past, I deleted them soon after I got notified by a very active Wikipedian user:GSS. Believe me Someone who has always worked as per Wikipedia guidelines (general rule) how could a same person perform so illogically then be so irresponsible towards Wikipedia to create something for someone which could in return hit his or her user ID. being so honest I am requesting your good self to give me a chance to prove my self that I am not at all associated with any blocked user. Trust my words & have little faith in me. I love contributing for Wikipedia it’s even a different feeling when I see my content reflected in google. But, now from few days you guys have left me in a different emotional state of my life. . . it feels like someone has snatched a very precious thing of a great value from my life. Please and please give me one chance to be part of wiki family! With huge respect I assure you that in future you will have regret that you had arraigned and blocked a wrong person & treated him/her so carelessly.Catherine0007 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, Wikipedia is not therapy and there's no doubt about the sockpuppetry here. Yamla (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2019 (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.
Unblock Request
edit Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Yamla I understand that wiki isn’t a therapy platform. But wouldn’t blocking a genuine user be wrong. I would Request you to please figure out a way to restore my account. So that I can contribute in content design as much I can.
I have gone through all multiple accounts of user:Farooqahmadbhat . . but, I can just tell you it’s time that he/she should be unfrocked rather than putting me in block list . . . I am really surprised how’s that user operating so many accounts. For me this users moral sense of what’s right and what’s wrong is totally gone . . Now I feel no matter if you don’t want to unblock my account even after so many unblock requests I will be highly indebted if you can just disassociate my account from this shameless user:Farooqahmadbhat. Catherine0007 (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Catherine0007 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You seem to be claiming that it's totally a coincidence that you created multiple drafts that had previously been created by the same sockpuppeteer. You cannot seriously expect us to believe that. Huon (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2019 (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.
Catherine0007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Apart from all these unnecessarily interrogations with these baseless allegations & assertions above Can I please have a chance to get back to my work. I have been so humbly waiting for unblock for many weeks and days now, even after raising unblock request with all the possible genuine reasoning it seems everything is despairing, incompetent & hopeless Catherine0007 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
(1) You have the strangest idea of what "humbly" means. I see no humility: just the opposite. (2) Did you really, really, think that accusing the administrators of incompetence was a good way to encourage one of them to accept your request for an unblock? (3) As far as the sockpuppetry goes, one of the following three situations must apply: you are trolling, you think we are completely stupid, or you are completely stupid. Rarely have I seen a persistent sockpuppeteer who makes is so glaringly obvious what they are doing. (4) Even if we ignore the blatant sockpuppetry, your spam is not welcome here. (5) Please stop wasting your own time and ours by creating sockpuppet accounts, which you know full well will be blocked, and creating new pages which you know full well will be deleted. It is difficult to believe you can't find something more useful to do with your time, and certainly we could use the time on constructive work for the encyclopaedia, instead of wasting our time dealing with your crap; that means that you actually cause damage to other parts of the encyclopaedia that you never touch yourself. (6) I shall remove your talk page access. If I see any more of your sockpuppets I shall do the same to them immediately, without waiting for you to waste more administrator time with your totally absurd unblock requests. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 22:05, 8 December 2019 (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.