User talk:Neyn

May 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Sultan Bahu has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Sultan Bahu was changed by Neyn (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.850231 on 2014-05-25T18:26:02+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neyn, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Neyn! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sultan ul arifeen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sultan ul arifeen 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/Sultan ul arifeen until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. kashmiri ^TALK 23:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Sultan ul arifeen. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

link

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Cite_book 182.178.143.229 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Faqr-e-Iqbal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Momin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of Sultan Bahu is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. I saw your post on the AN3 noticeboard and thought I'd respond to you here, as the noticeboard isn't relevant for that type of complaints. Can you provide diffs where the alleged harassment is proven? Also, I strongly advise you to be civil and refrain from calling people confused like you have done in several AFDs (1, 2, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sultan_Bahoo:_The_Life_and_Teachings). Don't make personal attacks; if you believe that the articles comply with policy or that the subjects are notable, it's your job to provide reliable sources that show the rest of us the same. Come up with valid arguments, and be sure of the policy. And keep in mind that personal attacks and repeated, unproven allegations is regarded as disruption, and you risk being blocked if it continues. Bjelleklang - talk 17:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of mrashid364 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bjelleklang - talk 20:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal For Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Verify my identity, this is my only username and IP. Please re-consider the facts and history of edits.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sultan_Bahoo:_The_Life_and_Teachings

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shams-ul-Fuqara

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mujtaba_Akhir_Zamani

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risala_Roohi_Shareef

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sultan_Bahu

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sarwari_Qadiri

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sultan-ul-Arifeen

User:kashmiri has done edits on these selective pages that I edit because of his own biases against these pages as they are not similar to his school of thought and in fact he wrongfully blames me for deleting articles related to his school of thought although I have not done even a single edit in them.I do not understand why I am blocked. I have been blocked unintentionally because I am not connected to any other user. Please verify my IP and details I am not a sockpuppet of mrashid364 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Compare my details with the details of this User. All the pages and edits done by me are all positive. How can my contributions be so easily disregarded on the basis of what User:kashmiri says. Please check the history of his articles and you will not find me involved in any edit. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Hamza_Makhdoom&action=history https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Makhdoom&action=history https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Hari_Parbat&action=history I see so many editors on his pages but not me. I am not involved in sockpuppetry. Why should I suffer for someone other user's edits? As for the articles that I often edit, I am the major editor and am maintaining these pages where other editors make edits of purely technical nature. I also create articles. Not a single edit done by me is disruptive and I have always edited articles in good-faith. Vandalism is something I cannot even think of as I have joined Wikipedia with the intention of contribution not to create issues. Kindly reconsider and tell me my mistake if there is any because I have been very honest in my work.

Decline reason:

I've run a checkuser, and your account is Technically indistinguishable from Nainntara (talk · contribs). In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2015 (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.

Nomination of Faqr-e-Iqbal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faqr-e-Iqbal 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/Faqr-e-Iqbal until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. kashmiri ^TALK 03:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal For Unblock Reconsider

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).

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

Request reason:

I have started using Wikipedia since May 2014 and if you check my record[1], I have created a few articles (Sultan-ul-Arifeen and Faqr-e-Iqbal and I have been the major editor for most of the other articles i.e. Sultan Bahu, Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings, Shams-ul-Fuqara, Mujtaba Akhir Zamani, Risala Roohi Shareef. Each of my edit is a contribution for relevant content as well as authentic references. I have added citations and links wherever required being focused on improving the article without any indulgence in any arguments or promotions etc. I never reverted any edits. But then User:kashmiri started to edit my article Sultan-ul-Arifeen by placing article merge tags [2] and then he would revert my edits and then nominated it for deletion[3]. User:kashmiri even changed the content of my article without my consent or any discussion [4]]. Thereafter, selective editors started editing these articles all of a sudden such and especially User:kashmiri and mrashid364 totally edited and erased almost 90% content of my page check [5]. My article is lost because of these editors and by lost I mean it does not even have the content it had and has become a stub due to their edits and edit wars[6]. This war then continued on the pages I frequently edit mentioned at the beginning. Also User:kashmiri would make edits for AfD purposes and he placed AfD on all these pages. Infact, he has even placed an AfD on my new article Faqr-e-Iqbal. None of these AfDs were justifiable. I even tried explain him one after another on all the articles’ deletion entries but he continued reverts and edits. : Sultan-ul-Arifeen [7] : Faqr-e-Iqbal [8] : Sultan Bahu [9] : Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings [10] : Shams-ul-Fuqara [11] : Mujtaba Akhir Zamani [12] : Risala Roohi Shareef [13] On Faqr-e-Iqbal, Shams-ul-Fuqara, Mujtaba Akhir Zamani and Risala Roohi Shareef, User:kashmiri placed AfD saying that these articles are based on Urdu books. Wikipedia contains so many articles based on Urdu books. What justification did he give? None. Check the article entries: 1.https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faqr-e-Iqbal 2. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risala_Roohi_Shareef 3. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mujtaba_Akhir_Zamani 4. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shams-ul-Fuqara I am into mysticism and these articles seemed to require attention as some of them were new. I have no concerns with other editors, in fact other editors of these articles have all been involved in edits soon after User:kashmiri started editing Sultan-ul-Arifeen. As for the accusation of sock puppetry, I use a public computer system from my office. There may or may not be users from the same IP as mine. However, my name is User:Neyn and so is my username. I am not User: Nainntara or User:AyeshaNB or User:mrashid364 or any other user for that matter. Please remove my block as I am the one who has suffered loss of content and hardwork due to other editors. I am the one who is disturbed by their behavior and edit wars. All my edits are positive contributions please consider. [14]

Decline reason:

When two accounts are indistinguishable on both behavioural or technical grounds, we don't really care whether it's one or several persons; we treat them as one. See WP:MEAT. Huon (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2015 (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.

Blocks based on positive Checkuser results generally will not be overturned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also; trying to shift blame to other users will also never work. You need to address our concerns and the reason for your block, not why someone else should be blocked. Bjelleklang - talk 20:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sultan-ul-Arifeen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sultan-ul-Arifeen 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/Sultan-ul-Arifeen until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Pax 02:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]