User talk:Arsalchechi

May 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, First Battle of Tarain, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to First Battle of Tarain. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at First Battle of Tarain, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Fazal Din, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NitinMlk (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to ', a topic designated as contentious'. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

While the above notification implies no fault, edits such as this, where you used an inaccurate edit summary, are disruptive and will lead to a loss of editing privileges if continued. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello. Your recent edit to Khandowa (clan) appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Khandowa (clan), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Anujror per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anujror. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

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).

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

Request reason:

I was a new editor on Wikipedia, and I was never given a fair place to contribute. Just after 51 edits, my account was blocked with the doubt of sockpuppetry which I never committed. I deny any Sockpuppetry of Anujror, requesting an unblock, and please grant me a chance to work on Wikipedia again. My account is only one year old. The account with which my account believed it was linked had received numerous SPI reports and blocks throughout the year. My account was not determined to be guilty of or associated with this account in any CU findings or WP:SPI reports.Arsalchechi (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My use of the checkuser tool confirms that you have abused multiple accounts. Your denial does not outweigh this. PhilKnight (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2024 (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.

PhilKnight, I haven't used any account before; can you please explain which accounts or multiple accounts I have abused that are shown in your CheckUser?. You can name any account if possible. Because I'm completely sure that I haven't used any other accounts before. How can I prove it? And how I'll be unblocked.? I explained genuinely all in my unblock request.Arsalchechi (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to explain any further. If this is a false positive, then you will remain blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]