User talk:Broken nutshell

While I don't agree witch you, If Mustafa Ali considers himself such then he is free to do it as is anyone.

--NHS2008 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Eva Marie), but that you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Hulk Hogan. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Hulk Hogan. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Broken nutshell! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 14:49, Friday, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Eva Marie. Provide a vaild source, just because you say its sourced doesnt make it sourced you must provide a vaild source or do not add the information. If you continue to add the content without a vaild source then I will have no other option than to report you. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Users,

        If you ever left a message on talk page, please Also add the title/subject of the page and section I've edited at that page instead of mentioning dates. Thank You. Broken nutshell (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User: WarMachineWildThing, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Widr (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me}

If a person I.e Eva Marie is not appearing at TV or anywhere so that doesn't mean we stop editing it. we're doing any unsourced things, you're saying that sourced doesn't mean become source blah blah what the fuck you're saying to me, we're trying to add things for Eva Marie are not unsourced. We're trying to providing valid reference not vandalizing as you're doing to others. Various news have been came but her Wikipedia is still in it's remain position. So please stop telling us what we should do and what we should not do. Things we're adding must be added. I'm saying sourced because I've completely reviewed the things related to her. We've fully read your the BLP Policy so please stop making issues.

It seems that you've divorced your wives and trying to shooting some pornos with them HAHA.

(edit conflict) None of the edits you made to Eva Marie contained a single reference or source supporting any of the content you added, so I'm confused when you say that you're "trying to add things for Eva Marie are not unsourced". Your edits were not only disruptive (especially after the third time you put it back), but they were in violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Instead of edit warring and leaving uncivil messages like the one you left here... you should consider taking time to actually listen to what he was trying to tell you, and read the policies and guidelines that he was linking you to. If you engage in making any more personal attacks towards WarMachineWildThing, your block will be extended. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of that slightly bizarre and possibly offensive tirade, could you clarify one thing: you repeatedly refer to yourself as 'we' and 'us'. Who is that? Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per this edit and this edit, he is going by Mike Kanellis in WWE, not Mike Bennett. --JDC808 ♫ 05:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So? A million things could happen between now and when she debuts back on the main roster. A possible return is just speculation at this point and has no place in an encyclopedia. Also, only the first letter of the first word of headers should be capitalized per MOS:HEAD except for proper nouns. Nikki♥311 18:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was uncalled for, You're entitled to your opinion but calling someone a "foolish bloody motherfucker." in an edit summary isn't going to end very well for you,
This place is full of trolls and vandals so it's best not to feed them, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 12:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Davey, first of all Apology for my behaviour, second is that If I see any kind of mistake in any page any content especially that relates things which I like in this world especially things relating WWE, and Women_in_WWE, if i see anything that goes negative I'll react but not by this way you've stopped. Third, Kindly add a title on what message you're conveying me so i can get to know about what message I got so please avoid writing dates, instead of it, write the name of topic as I give it title 'ABUSE'.

My page is open for 168(24x7) Broken nutshell (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - We all get pissed off on here at times so easily done,

As for the title - "September 2017" is nicer than "ABUSE" (For me it's a strong word and you changing it gives the impression I used that title to begin with when infact I didn't), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that at an IP's talk page you sent them a message attempting to replicate a talk page warning template. These can be found at WP:WARN or in the WP:TW menu and are much easier than typing the message out. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit says nothing about Neville having been released by WWE. It says he walked out and had been unhappy prior to walking out, both statements are supported by reliable sources. REEEEEbbon Salminen(talk) 15:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Broken nutshell. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:ScrapIronIV, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making allowances for the obvious fact that English is not your first language, but claiming you're involved in a "war of vandalisms" [1] is a bad thing for you to say. You appear to be trying to initiate a discussion, but your apologies are not reading quite the way you may have intended. I strongly suggest that you step back from the subject for a little while. Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Broken nutshell. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, why did you delete my RFP and added your instead of adding yours and leaving mine alone[2]? If you'd have any intelligence in you, you'd know by reading the instructions that all you had to do was add your RFP and that's it! You didn't have to delete mine. Next time you do that or anything like that I'll report you. (N0n3up (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

 :@N0n3up: I was thought that I've added this i.e why I removed it bimistakenly, I was engaged in stopping edit-war at Mustafa Ali (wrestler). 

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kavita Devi, 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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of cel-shaded video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Fylindfotberserk. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Mustafa Ali (wrestler), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mustafa Ali (wrestler). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Don't put WP:OR and do not edit war. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: see the last changes. i've added notes to stop further edit warrings. CK (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how Hidden Texts are to be used. You can't just tell others not to edit an article or claim ownership to an article. See WP:INVISIBLE.

The subject of the article is of "Pakistani descent" alright. That can be proven with the citation provided. If anybody changes that you can outright revert it. I'll change the "comments" as per Wiki guidelines.

These following lines are not supported by any of the citations. So they'll be removed for now and in future can be added back with valid sources.

• His parents are from Karachi, Pakistan. - Source mentions his Pakistani descent but nothing about Karachi.
• During his debut in the Cruiserweight Classic, it was stated by Daniel Bryan that Ali has experience as a local police officer for the area of Chicago that he resides in.
• He is married and has 2 children; a daughter and son.

-Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: the lines added *His parents are from Karachi, Pakistan. During his debut in the Cruiserweight Classic, it was stated by Daniel Bryan that Ali has experience as a local police officer for the area of Chicago that he resides in. this line only says that his parents are from Karachi not he himself. I know that he was born in Bolingbrook Illinois. if you're talking about removing Daniel Bryan Statement, this wasn't added by me, at the time of the article creation, this was already added at the beginning. there are other wikipedians of Wikiproject Professional Wrestling. I already told you that I give it Top priority as well as I made it my browser homepage so I can look through it and stop IP wars here.CK (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that those lines might not have been added by you. I just mentioned that these particular lines are unsourced before being removed. That's being civil

I made it my browser homepage so I can look through it and stop IP wars here - Didn't you have this article in your watchlist? You don't have to reload your homepage everytime. -Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes I've watchlisted it too, I also stated that When I visit wikipedia by myself I open that article first then I start visiting other pages or start my work as I visit that article several times. I also watched Cruiserweight Classic, It made me feel that the same war thing of Pakistan India that happens all around especially on social media websites, is gonna happen here too, at encyclopedia website. See, replacing a word Pakistan or Pakistani Descent with Indian references makes it what? nothing? but a boundary war. I know that 'Daniel Bryan thing' is unsourced, but after leaving a note, I also mentioned to you that YOUR CHANGES ARE STILL AS IT IS after you left me a Second message template. Yes, That note I added, I saw that thing for the very first time added in front of me at The Undertaker, then I decided to do same thing with other articles as well as I recommended to few of my fellow editors. I'm not a member of any wikiproject but I do editing of any article of any wikiproject if I see anything wrong there. If I see that thing continuously happen there, then I take a visit to that user's talk page who support my edits as well as that article talk page. Following last removals.

Now I would like to recommend to you to not to remove the statement He is the first WWE wrestler of Pakistani descent as same as 'Tian Bing is the first WWE Wrestler of Mainland China', 'Kavita Devi is the first female wrestler of WWE from Indian Nationality' and 'Shadia Bseiso became the first Arab female wrestler from the Middle East to sign a contract with WWE'. That's what I wanted. CK (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you that his "Pakistani descent" is sourced from a reliable site, so there's no reason to remove it. But if somebody edits it as "Pakistani" instead of "Pakistani descent" then it would be wrong since he is not a Pakistani national but an American of Pakistani descent. So care need to be taken. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Finally! Resolved! Thanks. CK (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Follow the Wikipedia guidelines and tell me whenever you need help. Happy editing.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Greatest Royal Rumble and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Greatest Royal Rumble, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Broken nutshell! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: As I was trying to use sandbox for the very first time as how it works, bimistakenly it happened. I was making an edit on Article's Controversy Section about Sami Zayn as not a part of Greatest Royal Rumble. Now the line was added already as I visited the article to see if not added. so I was trying to see who Sandbox works on that process. CK (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cordless Larry. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, List of British Pakistanis, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Broken nutshell! You created a thread called WP:USERBOX For Wrestling Fans at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Delivered by Muninnbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks, I hope this issue is done. I mean, for me it's pretty clear, the cruiserweight division is a sub-brand, they are members of RAW. I see this user had some issues with the 3 reversion rule. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "sock edit"?

I made a simple edit under the name I've been using for a decade - there's no "socking" here...don't understand what you're going for here.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Please Back off and Step back from that article I've already appealed for protection All time accusing website for being glitch and using same arguements and bullshit whatever I.e why I added a template there. CK (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not answering my question about why you referred to my edit as a sock edit...seems by your record that YOU have been blocked recently for socking, and your accusations against me looks like a case of "pot calling the kettle black"...you sir need to ease up and step back. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Oh Really then you should, I'm not backing off. I'm already at WP:ANI page, Yes I do block for but you don't need to clarify it. otherwise you'll be victim for same behavior I did last year with 2 users and got these Rectangular periodic templates. Ta! CK (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me? When you are saying "You'll be a victim", sounds an awful lot like a threat to me...not something the admins take kindly to - just saying. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the talk page guidelines and do not remove others' good faith talk page additions, as you did at Talk:List of WWE personnel. It does not matter if it was a section you started; once someone else has responded you cannot remove the section. It does not matter if you think the conversation is finished; if you think it should be closed, mark it closed with the appropriate templates (but just remember that others might reopen it if they think your close was premature). But do not remove others' comments from talk mates, ever. oknazevad (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. Either abide by the talk page guidelines, or you will be no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:32.213.92.177 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Amir Jordan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 00:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amir Jordan 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/Amir Jordan 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. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 10:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using an alternative account to "stop" another user is not a valid use. You have not declared the connection between the two accounts. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Broken nutshell. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

First of all, I accepted it and before getting blocked I already realized my mistake(that I did wrong thing) after receiving messages and got detected by reporting user, However, it's not fair because the IP editor is gonna initiate same arguments, I told that I have no option left after the IP bypassed all of them i.e why i did that. so atleast I need an expiry duration not little bit longer. CK (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

non sequitor. you appeal makes no rationale sense.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2018 (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.

@Dlohcierekim: This user uses very broken English so it can be hard to understand. Not saying it would change your decline, but just so you are aware, I think they are basically saying they felt they had no other option after Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_continually_editing_against_consensus has resulted in no action from an admin. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: See what Gala said This user uses very broken English which is right. as I still cite Galatz since this incident happened. CK (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is WP:sock. That was not addressed in the unblock request. Unless we are saying it was somehow justified by the actions of others? Or because theie complaint at ANI resulted in no action? WP:NOTTHEM. The blocking admin is Bbb23 and this a WP:CU block. I would require their input before even dreaming of unblocking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: I will not consent to an unblock. Although the user is incoherent, at best he exercised very poor judgment by creating another account because he "had to", but this is not the first time he's done it. Last time I blocked him for two weeks, and even then I felt that was lenient. I also get a strong odor of passive-aggressive: I'm sorry I did it but really only because I got caught and I still think I had to do it given the circumstances. This doesn't bode well for the future of this user on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Meh. I don't see the poor command of English as any sort of inducement, and I think you are right in your assessment above. Thanks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: @Bbb23: I agree. They clearly showed poor judgement, and they've twice accused other users of being a sock, so they obviously understood the rules. I simply was "translating" so you understood the request - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 02:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: @Bbb23: & @Dlohcierekim: yes this discussion is about WP:SOCK, look I don't mean to disrupt wikipedia, this discuss is also about trouble happening at List of WWE personnel. I even appealed the protection and the article was protected for 3 days. Despite protection, this article is still being targeted by rumorers, vandals and attackers by addition of week-by-week synopsis of storyline events, repeated trivias, unconfirmed information, rumors, and other content which is inappropriate to an encyclopedic article. Yes I have no option left to stop the IP editor for his action that he is performing, I recently saw the IP editor putting new text between old messages rather than putting under, and not even signing his messages since joining. The same editor trying to add same repeated trivias, rumors and unconfirmed news even at talk pages which has to be stopped and strict action against that editor has to be taken immediately. That's what I really wanted. CK (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Now I realize my mistake that I did 3 days ago. Next time I'll be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and never do the same mistake again. CK (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What mistake was that? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:49, 17 August 2018 (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.

@Jpgordon: I did abuse of multiple accounts. CK (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, since you knew about the rules of SOCK accounts its doubtful you will get unblocked, at least not now. If you keep opening these requests they typically just block you from being able to edit your own talk page too. You are better off taking a couple months off (they usually recommend 6), cooling off from the whole thing, and then request an unblock with the promise of having learned your lesson and the promise of not repeating. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Galatz: I Get it, Thanks. CK (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Greatest Royal Rumble, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians and @Legacypac:, I have a message regarding Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Greatest Royal Rumble, First of all I can't cast any nominations right because I'm blocked from editing right now, talking about this nomination, well, block is not the reason for no participation, Here is the reason of non-participation: It's just a try to edit a current existing article via sandbox experiment which mistakenly led to the creation of new article, so I also appeal the force speedy deletion of Draft:Greatest Royal Rumble if the article still not deleted. Thank You. C K¹⁶⁸ 13:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft was blank (no content) and I am just cleaning up hundreds of blank drafts. Legacypac (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Get it, Thanks for assistance. Now I continue my rest until I get unblock and clear up all previous things that happened to me and what I've done. So I say thanks again for your assistance. Cheers!. C K¹⁶⁸ 19:11, 13 October 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Now I understand the rules of WP:SOCK, I realized what I did 2 months ago, I'll be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and I will never do any abuse of multiple accounts and repeat any other past mistakes(that I did) ever again. C K¹⁶⁸ 14:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You clearly understood the rule before this round of sockpuppetry, having been blocked for it back in late 2017. This isn't a case of a misunderstanding, so please stop trying to claim that you didn't understand the rules before. Your best bet is to wait six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. At that time, you'll need a substantially more convincing unblock request. Yamla (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I Promise to avoid with the behavior of Sockpuppetry that led to blocking, I'll never ever repeat the mistake of WP:SOCK ever again that I have done(2 times I did) and will not cause further damages or disruptions to wikipedia again. Thanks. C K¹⁶⁸ 22:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been evading your block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2019 (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.

@NinjaRobotPirate: First I wanna know, Can evasion easily be detected by IP? either, an edit has been done(not necessarily by blocked user) within the same IP after expiration of IP Block? (that had been blocked for a short time along with the user who was recently blocked).

Secondly, If I'm detected evading block (IF ME), Then, is there any script per WP:BREAKENF that can avoid me, even other users from my area to use IP Address for editing Wikipedia? If yes, then tell me can I apply Break Enforcer method on IP address? I do really wanted to take a break as an editor as we(as blocked users) being ordered to wait six months with zero edits, zero evasions. However, continuous edit warrings within Professional Wrestling Articles especially WWE related wakes me up and force me to request unblock to patrol and revert or remove such nonsense unconfirmed and rumored edits. Articles include:(BLPs of Brie Bella, Bella Twins, The Undertaker and related articles of him, Kane and other legendary wrestlers articles who still wrestling for wwe and haven't made any announcement of retirement like John Cena, Wrestlemania articles from mania 30 till onwards, any wrestler related articles that people create rumors that he or she requested WWE release for not being happy with few certain moments and declines rumors). My university teacher now clearly ordered me to not to write any assignment from Wikipedia article. As stated by User Davey "full of trolls and vandals per WP:DFTT when Edit warring happened at John Cena after WWE No Mercy 2017 when someone put Semi-Retirement term for Cena."

Third, can WP:EMAIL be counted as edit while blocked(Either if we don't add email notification template)? should I avoid WP:EMAIL as well? C K¹⁶⁸ 13:08, 2 June 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I promise to not to repeat the behavior of Sockpuppetry ever again, even I promise that I will never ever repeat any mistake that can disrupt or damage the community ever again. Thanks. C K¹⁶⁸ 16:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reply to RaviC in over a week. Please feel free to make another request when you have the time to engage with us. SQL^{Query me!} 03:37, 24 January 2020 (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.

• While this account was last blocked for sockpuppetry, there were clearly more problems in their editing. I don't see any reason to accept the unblock unless a topic ban has been made for anything related to Pakistan, but then I don't think that this editor would be interested in editing anything else. --RaviC (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I really promise to not to perform sock-puppetry again even any other activity that could disrupt Wikipedia, (I've waited for 6 months with zero edits and no evasions when I posted last unblock Request), I'm really interested in editing Wikipedia and it's up to me whenever I show up my participation when unblocked. 1) After Unblock, First, I wanna award my friendly and fellow editors their respective barnstars and awards for assisting me in editing articles(majority related to Pakistan, WWE and many other articles that I feel under attacked abruptly, which resulted in having no option left to defend the community). 2) Yup I created 3 Alternate accounts but last 2 accounts were created to defend the community (for one day and leave them to only use your original account, in short, this was just one time only and I don't need any alternate accounts and I'm completely sick of this activity, I'm done with that, and Finally, Sole Accounts are way better for me). 3) Sockpuppetry, Wikipedia is not the only platform, Before being a wikipedia, I did on Facebook and Instagram and the reason "defense" was same as I did here (and I always do this to protect my sole account while having risks of attacks and vulnerabilities, even I've faced attacks too, excepting Wikipedia due to strict policies and guidelines), While Wikipedian have to be very careful while creating alternate accounts as well as there are some policy and guidelines, and I understand what is WP:SOCK, I Again repeat I'll never ever create any multiple account(even perform sockpuppetry) ever again. Thanks again in advance, feel free then respond, no hurrys and worries here. C K¹⁶⁸ 20:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2020 (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.

I'll note you did not agree to the suggested topic ban and you did not suggest what other subject areas you'd edit. We aren't interested in you handing out barnstars and awards. --Yamla (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:: My requests has nothing to do with topic ban, it's RaviC who appears to be my fellow Pakistani Wikipedian I think(maybe not), there are numerous places around the racist and bribed world whether real life or social media where complaints against racism, hate speech maker, violence, discrimination and bribery went on declination despite being true complain either with an evidence. Same thing had been happened at the time of attackers Vjmlhds and NotTheEditor who had been initiating same topic continuously which seriously left no option for any of wikipedians even User:Nickag989 who also got blocked indefinitely for same thing as me if this is related to last incidence before his block. My Friendly Wikipedians are User:IanPCP User:Fishhead2100 User:Oshwah User:NotTheFakeJTP User:HHH_Pedrigree User:Fylindfotberserk User:Nickag989 and User:Galatz Right now whom I trust well. C K¹⁶⁸ 11:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA. --Yamla (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:, WP:NPA states as well, during heated and stressful debates editors tend to overreact. at section Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#First_offenses_and_isolated_incidents. this is what exactly happened before: Let me show you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive940#Vjmlhds.27_monthslong_edit_warring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#Egregious_personal_attacks_and_other_inappropriate_conduct_by_User:Nickag989

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#Editor_continually_editing_against_consensus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Continued_editing_against_consensus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#Frequent_disputes_with_Galatz

See those above threads, which relates the green quote above as well as turned wikipedia into WP:BATTLEGROUND. C K¹⁶⁸ 12:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even Vjmlhds had 11 Blocks in his history with 2 being indefinite for harassments and disruptions. as being referenced in above WP:ANI Links. C K¹⁶⁸ 12:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:171.79.84.35, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User talk:2600:1:92C2:3151:AABB:97B8:B5C:EAC4 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here I promise to not to repeat the behavior of Sockpuppetry ever again, even I promise that I will never ever repeat any mistake that can disrupt or damage the community ever again. C K168 11:37 am, 15 July 2022, Friday (28 days ago) (UTC−4).

Accept reason:

Unblock per Yamla and after asking Bbb23. There is a WP:TBAN on Pakistan and related subjects, broadly construed. User must not edit about Pakistan or related subjects. Appealable in six months to Yamla or WP:AN. Single account restriction-- user may not use any account but this one and must not edit while logged out. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hell|¹⁶⁸]] 15:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser data shows no evidence of block evasion, though they likely have control over Saadahmedkhan. That account, however, has never edited. --Yamla (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broken nutshell, you still have not agreed to the above topic ban. You are very unlikely to be unblocked without doing so. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I agree with topic ban :@Yamla:. C K¹⁶⁸ 17:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: OK to accept? Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to me, given the topic ban on Pakistan, broadly construed. --Yamla (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never asked the blocking admin, @Bbb23:, if OK to unblock. Yamla cleared CU part. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Thanks for the ping. If you and Yamla think we should unblock the user, go ahead.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Where have you been? Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk Yo! I Actually got blocked for suckpuppetry again but this time was indefinite and topic ban imposed on be on the topics related to Pakistan in order to get unblock and no idea for how long. Aside of this I had other things to do as the time when i used to do wikipedia I was a university student that time, now concentrating on heavy and tough job opportunities nowadays so i have been less focusing on wikipedia articles. don't worry Broken nutshell still alive for contributions. also i'm nowadays not been concentrating on pro wrestling and wwe since last covid pandemic times. lot more stories surrounding me but can't explain more cuz may go longer. C K¹⁶⁸ 10:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck for your endeavours. I was busy too.. with work, then got COVID, and recently my dad passed away :(. Life goes on... - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks Man! Sad to hear about your dad, But Don't worry, when needed I shall be available here. Thanks again. C K¹⁶⁸ 19:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]