Strider11
Strider11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is totally unjustified. Either User:Yellowmonkey is a biased pro-Indian user or either he has problems with specific content about India on the State-sponsored terrorism article. In the past, there have been multiple users editing this article, and inserting content about State-terrorism. However, suprisingly, each time when something is written about India, Yellowmonkey just erases the whole section without even bothering to clarify properly on the talk page or explaining the reason for the removal. In fact, he's never even taken the effort to come up on my talk page and tell me what his concern is regarding the information let alone hand out a warning at least. Recently, I wrote content about three Indian spies who had contact with the Research and Analysis Wing, and had plotted terrorist attacks in Pakistan ( I provided over 8 references just to clarify that statement, all from different sources), however, unsurprisingly, User Yellowmonkey jumped in the scene again and did not just remove that info, but removed the whole "India" section completely, for what I believe to be the 20th time now. I think he is taking unfair and undue advantage of being a Wikipedia administrator, and his inexcusable and baseless edits are completely violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view, as well as being a form of groundless vandalism. Also note, I am not the first user who has been blocked by Yellowmonkey. He has previously blocked some other users as well, that continously write stuff relating to alleged state-sponsored terrorism by India. Furthermore, if there are concerns with the language structure I use, for evident proof, you can go to the article and read the page history yourself. If you click on the link that leads to what I previously may have written, you may find that the things I wrote about the 3 Indian agents (with my other account) only contained facts about their plot, and what their intentions were, not anything that may offend India, something what I think Yellowmonkey's behaviour seems to be deemed by. If it is illegal to write about Indian state-sponsored terrorism on Wikipedia, please take the initiative to inform me. Oh by the way, you may notice that the reason for my block is "socking". Although he is right, please note that I was already blocked before this, which was to be expired on March 2, however, since I repeated the "mistake" of posting Indian-related content on the article , which is "offensive", with one my other accounts, he has extended my block to another 3 months on the basis of socking.
Decline reason:
Strike one. Now try again without accusing long-serving, well-respected users of wrongdoing. (See WP:GAB for clues). Nobody will unblock when your request starts with an attack on somebody else. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 11:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
Strider11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand why I was blocked. Consequently, I promise and assure that I will not post India-related content on the State-sponsored terrorism article as user:Yellowmonkey found it offensive, and will also refrain from having multiple accounts and all of my other actions that were viewed against Wikipedia's rules. Also, although I was aware that socking is against Wikipedia's policies, I thought it was okay to have multiple accounts even when a person is blocked, provided that the edits that a user is making are useful and good. As a result, I re-assure that once unblocked, I will make constructive edits in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and policies and request for being unblocked. If I ever make any another mistake again, I will readily accept any action from the administrators.
Decline reason:
Strike two. If you can convince Jayron and Yellowmonkey you should be unblocked, that will be fine. But you haven't convinced me. Your excuse for sockpuppetry is ludicrous, and the only other thing I can see in your appeal is a non-believable promise married to an insult on the integrity of a highly-respected editor. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
- Before I respond to this unblock request, you admit that you have created additional accounts to dodge this block. Could you please list all alternat accounts you have created? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Strider11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was of the view that if somebody had problems with my edits on the State-sponsored terrorism article, they should send a clarified warning or at least contact me on the talk page about it. But for very own strange reasons, I have been blocked without even a single warning. The Admin who blocked me set an extended block of upto 23 May! (which is 2 months from now). Despite repeated assurances, I am still being deliberately ignored. Yellowmonkey first blocked me on the basis of repeated "vandalism" because I kept posting the same adjacent content. How in the name of God are some of the things in the India section percieved as vandalism, especially with the fact that some statements even had references - especially the statement which said that "3 Indian RAW agents were arrested in Lahore" had 8 citations. And then there were facts like India's suspected funding of the BLA and also deeper history, like its involvement with the Tamil Tigers in the past. Anyway, I consider this discussion to be pointless as it is merely like raking up old issues. In short......I am still confused with the injustice.
Decline reason:
I'd find your claim believable, if you hadn't been evading your block for the past 10 days as Pacifist94. Strike three--you're out. Blueboy96 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
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.
January 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ali Kazim, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ali Kazim is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ali Kazim, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:TRR edit
Please for god sake avoid this rule or some pro-indian Admin will block you.And remain calm.
Speedy deletion nomination of Kenya–Pakistan relations edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kenya–Pakistan relations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://web.archive.org/web/20040901034843/http://www.pakistantimes.net/2004/07/31/business3.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Nomian (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)