User talk:Finmas

August 2023

Hello, I'm Glane23. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Islam and Sikhism—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed the section because it did not belong to the article as it was more about attacks by terrorist groups. The page is about the study of two religions. Finmas (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of gurdwaras

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of gurdwaras, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sikhism in Germany, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Soest, Offenbach and Neunkirchen. 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) 06:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:HaughtonBrit per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:57, 29 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am sock of nobody. I got message in email. I joined Wikipedia to make creative changes to articles of my interest. I have more to do in real life than reel life and had to retire. Finmas (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If we unblocked everyone blocked for sockpuppetry just because they said they weren't socks, we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy at all. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:29, 1 March 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.

Finmas (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Second request. I read the SPI cases against me. SPI case proved me unrelated and the next proved me inconclusive. Why was I blocked then? SPI case says I have interest in same articles as socks and there is significant overlap. What significant overlap? This is false. I commented on a talk page where other sock accounts did contribute but that does not make me a sock. I filed SPI case against the individual who was a sock puppet himself before and I still do believe in my filing to be true. The individual retaliated with two SPI cases against me and it was proven unrelated and then later on the next one as inconclusive. My interest as compared was different from the socks. I am also busy in real life and that is why you can see minimum contribution from me and I only plan to contribute when there is time for me in future. I have been good contributor though minimal due to time and less interest in reel life. That is why I tagged myself as retired for now. Please do unblock me as I am not sock.Finmas (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you have no specific edits you wish to make, there is no need to remove the block at this time. When you have an edit you wish to make, we can consider a request by you then. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 1 March 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.

@331dot This is fine with me to keep my account blocked for time being and when I am ready I will request for unblock but meanwhile can you please remove the sock tag from my user page please since from the SPI case results it has been proven that I am not a sock. This is all I am asking for. Finmas (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag does not say that you are a sock, it says you are a suspected sock, which is true. The SPI does not definitively say you are not a sock, it said "inconclusive". 331dot (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Initial SPI case said unrelated (proving not a sock) and the later said inconclusive. That is why I was asking to have the sock tag removed without unblocking me. Sorry for being a fuss. Can you guide me on what the next steps would be when I decide to rejoin in the future and make edits? Do I just submit unblock request again? Is that all?

Finmas (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may make a new unblock request when you have an edit you want to make. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Finmas is a duck quacking through a megaphone. This user is trying to take advantage of the long, convoluted history behind his sockpuppetry to gaslight admins. He has been harassing me non stop since his accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked. Before that, I got his sock account MehmoodS' unblock request denied in Jan 2023-[1]. MehmoodS was swearing up and down that he would never block evade or use any sort of sockpuppetry; CUs found no evidence of it either, turns out he was making 100s of edits logged out during his block. Then when caught red handed, he claimed he didn't know logged out editing constituted block evasion but at the very least he didn't create another account; turns out he created an account Javerine before his unblock request when he made all those promises, which was later uncovered in April 2023. He has a long history of fooling CUs, he has a bunch of IPs and proxies at his disposal. Finmas and Dazzem (the latter blocked just now) after my message here-[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:The_Wordsmith#HaughtonBrit are obvious socks, its not even a matter of suspicion or plausible deniability, they 110% are socks. The history of his sockpuppetry and gaslighting is so extensive and convoluted, it'll make your head spin. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]