User talk:Raqib Zaman

April 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Stephen Harper, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please see the talk page and edit history for WP:Consensus regarding adding economist in the lead paragraph. WildComet (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stephen Harper. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. There is an active discussion over at Talk:Stephen Harper#Lead: Stephen Harper is a Canadian economist? regarding the addition of economist in the lead sentence. As there is presently no consensus to include it, please stop adding it. WildComet (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film plots

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please refrain from making changes to plot summaries/synopses that conflict with the plot summary edit guides. You may wish to review the specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. Excessive detail and high word counts should be avoided. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Your recent editing history at The Godfather Part III shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of Adobe CEOs

Hello, Raqib Zaman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Adobe CEOs, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trudeau

I noticed that you have recently edited the Justin Trudeau article. Please read the Justin Trudeau talk page, and consider joining the discussion.Peerreviewededitor (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hi Raqib Zaman! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Rishi Sunak that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Politanvm ^talk 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Rishi Sunak, 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello, Raqib Zaman, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Rain Zaman (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Spicy (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raqib Zaman. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Salvio giuliano

23:23, 21 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

For a third time, when I used multiple accounts to convoy my message I didn't mean to create a delusional support for it, I was just convoying my message using again and again using different accounts since I used all of them. Please try to understand, I really want to be a part of this editors' community once again. Please let me edit again

Decline reason:

I could just decline this as one of three open requests when we greatly prefer a user have only one open at a time. And, I am. But I would also be remiss if I did not point out that there is no difference between "creat[ing] a delusional [sic] support" and "just convoying my message using again and again using different accounts".

That error seems to me not to have arisen from a deliberate attempt to obfuscate on your part, but rather genuine difficulty using the English language. In other words, it's clear to me that you don't really understand the policy you violated.

I think it would be best if you deleted your other requests and edited the Wikipedia in your native language instead of trying to get unblocked here. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2023 (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.

Raqib Zaman (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

For a second time, I really didn't know that using multiple accounts for editing Wikipedia articles was an offense. I had been using accounts with my father, mother and brother's name to make edits as well as this one, which is on my own name and my real account. Now, that I know, I promise I'll never make that mistake again. Trust me, I'm not a professional historian, but I am an enthusiast history reader and researcher. Researching with history and contributing to publishing some unknown historical facts is like my biggest hobby. With this you might understand how much I want to get back on contributing to Wikipedia. So please forgive me for my past mistakes and let me contribute to people's knowledge again.

Decline reason:

As I understand, you were warned not to user multiple accounts, but you ignored the warning. Now, you claim that you didn't know. That is hard to believe. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2023 (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.

Raqib Zaman (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understood my mistake and promise would never do it again. I didn't knew having and using multiple accounts was a crime in Wikipedia. Instead of blocking me directly you could have given me a warning at first. But, anyways I am extremely sorry and trust me I'll never do it again. Please take my reasons into consideration and let me edit again

Decline reason:

Please do not make more than one unblock request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2023 (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.

Raqib Zaman (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raqib, you claim you did not know that using multiple accounts was not allowed and, yet, you were warned about this in August 2022. Why did you not stop engaging in sock puppetry then? $Salvio giuliano$ 18:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]