User talk:Toufeeq690

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Dargah hazrat shah sharafat miya.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Dargah Shah Sharafat Miya.jpg. The copy called Image:Dargah Shah Sharafat Miya.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 06:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Dargah Hazrat Shah Sharafat Miya.jpg

The file File:Dargah Hazrat Shah Sharafat Miya.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poor quality file that is orphaned and would have no obvious value in transferring to Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Saqlain Miyan. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Saqlain Miyan, you may be blocked from editing. Liu1126 (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Saqlain Miyan. Materialscientist (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for hearing that I am vandalizing the wiki page however I was just want this page to be more accurate Toufeeq690 (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Saqlain Miyan

Hello, Toufeeq690. If you believe there are inaccuracies within the Saqlain Miyan article, you may directly edit the article (with claims supported by reliable sources), or raise the issue on the talk page. Do not directly add comments to the article itself. Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liu we would like to delete this page as it is not created by a responsible authority of the Personality in subject. Toufeeq690 (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are various valid reasons for deleting an article, but in general, articles are only deleted if the subject is non-notable or the number of reliable sources publicly available is inadequate to sustain an article. The creator of the article is irrelevant in deletion discussions; only the article content matters. If you believe there are issues with the article, I would encourage you to fix them yourself. Liu1126 (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liu,

There were misinformation,which were changed however we would like to delete this page. Toufeeq690 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the current information is correct, why do you want to delete the page? If you really want the page deleted, you can follow the procedure at WP:AFDHOWTO, but unless you give a really good reason (and the identity of the original creator is not one), other editors are unlikely to agree with you, and since you have already received your final warning (see the newest comment under User_talk:Toufeeq690#October 2023), a deletion nomination that appears frivolous to others may lead to additional sanctions against you. Liu1126 (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are not the creator of this page that is the main reason for deletion,if creator is irrelevant and we can make further changes in order to make it accurate,we may continue with this and please suggest. Toufeeq690 (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake, I'll state the obvious: you, your IT department, and your organization do not get to determine the content of this website. This is not LinkedIn. That's not how encyclopedias work. Drmies (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, since I was not aware how wiki works I might have made mistakes,how do I request to enable my account. Toufeeq690 (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to request your account to be unblocked, follow the instructions detailed in the block notice below. Liu1126 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

Drmies (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no financial stake I edited this as this was having inaccurate information since I might did mistake following guidelines, Toufeeq690 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.

I Do not use Wiki for any paid

State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.

No compensation.

Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

I will follow wiki guidelknes Toufeeq690 (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No financial stake--you don't get a paycheck? Drmies (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paycheck for what? I did not follow you. Toufeeq690 (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said you are head of IT. Are you paid to be head of IT, or do you do it for free? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is non profit orgnisation and I work for free. Toufeeq690 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person in subject of the wiki page is a religious Personlity of our Region and I support them for IT related activities,I noted someone today created a wiki page with false information so i have started follow up and doing changes I might have did some steps which are against Wiki Policies but My main concern was to either correct this page or get it deleted so the wrong information should not spread by a reputed information Hub i.e.Wikipedia. so please suggest next action where My Id get unblocked. Toufeeq690 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's not paid editing, but you do have a conflict of interest. I suggest you have a read of WP:COI. And then what you need to do is make an unblock request (instructions are in the block message) in which you explain how you will follow the best practices outlined there. (And also make sure this account is only used by one person). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being a non-profit does not preclude you from being given a salary for your work. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My intention of editing this was completely misunderstood. I am not a paid editor and not doing any such business,if you really understand please unblock. Toufeeq690 (talk) 05:33, 26 October 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).

Toufeeq690 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I read and understood the COI policy and will do my best to adhere it, please unblock my user idToufeeq690 (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please describe how your editing will be different, now you have read WP:COI. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 25 October 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.

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).

Toufeeq690 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock as I mention in my talk page I sincerely apologizes if I did not follow the guidelines, intention was just to correct or delete the page which has COI Toufeeq690 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This gives no indication that you've even bothered to read WP:COI, let alone the specific steps you plan to take in order to adhere to that policy. Yamla (talk) 16:13, 25 October 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.

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).

Toufeeq690 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agreed to follow wiki guidelines and will not make any changes in future My intention of editing this was completely misunderstood. I am not a paid editor and not doing any such business,if you really understand please unblock Toufeeq690 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been asked three times to give specifics and you have not done so. I think this is going nowhere, and have revoked your ability to edit this page. MER-C 18:08, 28 October 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.