User talk:Secret.Sayyid

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]

Hi Secret.Sayyid! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Rajasthan Front

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Secret.Sayyid. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rajasthan Front, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan Front Issues

[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rajasthan Campaign (1965)

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Rajasthan Campaign (1965) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Extremely lackluster in sources and potentially biased

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria 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. Tag3pilots (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rajasthan Front

[edit]

Hello, Secret.Sayyid. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Rajasthan Front".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Shaheed arif.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Shaheed arif.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Secret.Sayyid! Your additions to Alan Macfarlane Sloan have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Arif Hussain Hussaini, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 01:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Biar Bet (1965) (November 5)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tavantius was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
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 after they have been resolved.
Tavantius (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Secret.Sayyid! Having an article draft 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! Tavantius (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Biar Bet (1965) (November 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CFA was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Clearly written by AI.
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 after they have been resolved.
C F A 💬 15:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very strange that you accuse me of writing it with AI, when I spent days researching and writing this due to which the draft page showed that there was no stashed content (happens after 24 hours), because of which I had to rewrite everything and redo all the citations. I'm against AI being used on Wikipedia and other informative things, so why on earth would I use it? It's very disappointing that you accuse me of something I didn't do. Please review your decision. Secret.Sayyid (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Biar Bet (1965) (November 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CanonNi was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
All you changed was an apostrophe. Please do not wast reviewer time.
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 after they have been resolved.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Pr0pulsion 123 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pr0pulsion 123. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Izno (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, woke up today to see my account blocked. I would like to say that I have no connection with the person I am suspected to be a "sockpuppet" of, I am an independent editor, who does his own research and I can tell you now that I have no association with the aforementioned user. I have a focus on Pakistani military history due to me being a proud Pakistani and I try to document everything that has happened in the past. The Battle of Biar Bet article was worked on by me for many days, and it's disappointing to see that my account has been blocked for no valid reason. After the Battle of Khemkaran was created, I was notified of a link between my article and Doomguy's (once again, I have no relation to him/her), after reading through his article, I was inclined to make an edit, as you said, within a few minutes. I mainly focus on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, as seen by my articles, but I do sometimes make articles on other wars. I categorically reject all claims made against me, and am very disappointed to see how I've been blocked with no solid evidence. As you have seen, the Battle of Biar Bet section on Operation Desert Hawk was made months before my account's inception, I demand that my account is unblocked with immediate effect and my articles, which I spent many hours writing, are put back up.

Decline reason:

You are very clearly a sockpuppet. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 28 December 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Since my request to be unblocked has been rejected, I will this time respond to every claim made against me

Ratnahastin says that I edited Doomguy427's article (Battle of Khemkaran) within a few minutes of it's creation. What he did not include that I was actually scrolling Wikipedia at the very same time that I received a notification in my inbox that one of my articles had been linked to Doomguy's Khemkaran article.

A notification like this one was sent to me via my inbox alerting me to a link between one of my articles and the Khemkaran article, the original notifcation has been deleted since both me and him/her have been blocked and our articles wrongfully deleted

Furthermore, my browser history from the day shows that I was indeed scrolling Wikipedia at the time of the article's creation, see below :

My browser history (above) shows that I was scrolling Wikipedia when I got the notification. There is no way that I could have randomly searched up this battle and it would come on Google due to it not being reviewed at the time of writing.
The next claim from MBlaze Lighting says that I created the section on the Battle of Biar Bet on the Operation Desert Hawk article but fails to see that the section was created months before my account's creation

Another claim (Capture of Bhimber) is similar to the Khemkaran one, look at my browser history from the 13th of November 2024

How could I possibly have gone to Bhimber from the Abul Fazl page other than the notification I got? I did not make any searches which clearly shows I went to the page directly from Wikipedia

Yet another claim somehow uses my draft that I did not finish then recreated as a full-fledged article as proof of me being a sockpuppet, how does that even make sense? My draft was deleted before I could finish it off [deletion of my draft]

Proof that my Rajasthan Front draft was deleted, forcing me to create a completely new page. This is viewable on my talk page

Next up, Hujjat al-Umari accuses me of being a sockpuppet, while being confirmed by a CheckUser evalution that he was a sock, while I was not, voiding his accusation.

Last of all, the admin who blocked me (Izno) confirmed that he had executed a CheckUser on my account and that his check was inconclusive [confirmation of an inconclusive CheckUser], showing he had no valid proof of me being a sock other than assumptions and accusations. In case of the link not working I will attach another image

Here Izno confirms his check was inconclusive, proving they have no solid proof to declare me as a sock

With no solid proof and and virtually no reason to legitimately block me, I was wrongfully prevented from editing Wikipedia to document my country's history due to an alleged association to a person I have never come across nor had an interaction with.

This lack of proof warrants a removal of my block and I have provided ample proof of my innocence.

Decline reason:

I believe it is very unlikely that you will be unblocked by proving that you are not a sockpuppet, and I remain unconvinced by this request. Please follow WP:SO and appeal from your main account. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:56, 31 January 2025 (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.

Regarding your email

[edit]

You have prompted me into reviewing the evidence of sockpuppetry provided in the investigation further, and you are clearly a sockpuppet. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:05, 3 February 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Good evening, I'm here again to appeal my wrongful block from Wikipedia. I understand I may have been hostile in the past, and i offer my apology. Anyways, I again want to clarify that I have no relations to any other accounts on this website, and that I am someone who works by himself. I'm open to having a conversation with any moderator that I've talked to in the past, whether it be here or on a different platform. I have come to terms with the provided reasons for my block, and even though they are not true, I could see why I was flagged as a sockpuppet. As a new editor I wasn't familiar with sockpuppetry allegations or overlapping. Since I have been told to talk to you from my main account, I would like to reiterate that I don't have another account and I refuse to make another to bypass this block. I want to maintain my legitimacy and not jeopardise my chances of getting unblocked. I want to have a discussion with a moderator who is willing to understand my side of the story, in the time I was able to edit, I did not vandalise any pages nor obstruct pages, all I did was document historical facts according to Wikipedia Guidelines, ever since joining, I have reason to believe I have not done anything against the Wikipedia Guidelines. I haven't made any edits on other accounts since my block. All my edits have been in good faith and not to obstruct Wiki norms. Once again, I am open to discussion, please reach out to me via email or my socials which are listed on my user page. Please understand that I am asking this of you in good faith. Thanks in advance.

Decline reason:

It seems to me that you're trying too hard to prove your innocence, burying us in "evidence" to try to convince us, and actually doing the opposite. In my many years here I've never seen someone attempt to do what you've done. It's just not what most people do. And no, we won't communicate with you on social media or via email; if you have things to say that you haven't said- I'm not sure what that might be- do it here. I think you're a sockpuppet, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Good evening, I've been rejected again. To be honest even for me it's getting quite tiring, trying to prove my innocence, and obviously, through the 4 months I've been blocked I've repeatedly denied the accusations against me. I was not given a chance to contest the claims made against me on the investigation. I woke up one morning and my account was blocked, I was not given prior notice of me being under suspicion until I was blocked. The reason that I keep trying to get this account unblocked is that this is my only account. And I don't want to create another one to damage my credibility any further. Before I was blocked, I had no prior knowledge of "Pr0pulsion 123", whoever that is, and again, there was no concrete proof of me being related to his activities, as was the case when Izno carried out a CheckUser on my account. I want to thank you guys for at least bothering to respond but unfortunately you refuse to see my side of the story. I can understand why I was under suspicion and I will avoid the "suspicious" activities. I want to assure you that I've reviewed Wikipedia's policies about sockpuppetry, I acknowledge that past actions may have led to this block but I want to clarify my position and demonstrate my commitment to contributing to Wikipedia I maintain that I was not knowingly involved in sockpuppetry. It is possible that my actions were misinterpreted, or that there were misunderstandings regarding IP addresses (though I don't think I had any issues regarding my IP) or editing similarities. I'm willing to cooperate fully with any further steps you guys want to take in the investigation. I want to show, in good faith, that I only edit to improve Wiki. Since getting blocked, I tried to gain a clearer understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and am committed to adhering to them strictly. Since I am both a history fan and am proud of my country, it makes sense for me to document my country's history, which I did. Unfortunately other people exploited the Wiki's editing guidelines to do sockpuppetry and I have been caught in the crossfire. I'm willing to edit other sides of Wikipedia and stop focusing on one specific matter, if that helps my case. I believe I can contribute to the accuracy and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia's content, especially on the military history side. I'm willing to follow by any specific conditions or monitoring you want to apply to me to ensure my compliance with your policies. I'm also open to mentorship or guidance from experienced editors to prevent something like this happening again and dragging on for so long. Also, 331dot, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and I understand your POV, and why you're sceptical, but I place my hand on my heart and I assure you that I am not a sockpuppet. Also to all the others who paid attention to my case, apologies if I said something that offended you. Have a good day

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, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2025 (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.

Hi Yamla, it's been 23 days since I submitted another appeal, no one has responded, and I'm not exactly very happy, but anyways, I'd appreciate it if you responded or got another admin to respond, have a good day and I hope you consider my request Secret.Sayyid (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Good morning, it's perhaps the first time since I got blocked that someone has shown even a glimmer of sympathy towards my situation, anyways, as you can see there is always a reply button under the unblock request, unfortunately whenever I press it, it shows me an error and tells me I can't use it, therefore I have to resort to writing new unblock requests. As Yamla said, my unblock requests often go weeks without response, not sure why though. Other than that, I don't think my block was necessary from the get-go since back then I was a relatively new editor and made minor edits, and I should have understood that there were implications on the moderators from my actions that made them suspicious to my alleged status as a sockpuppet, so I want to be straightforward as possible
- I will only edit in good faith, and will not vandalise any pages, in any place or time
- My future work will only be in the interests of the general community, and I will stop anything that might portray me as biased and/or a fraud
- I will only make useful contributions
- I understand what I was blocked for and I have reason to assure you it won't happen again
- I will attempt to notify moderators before making any changes that might implicate me in more accusations like this.
Along with this, it has been almost 6 months since I was blocked, so according to WP:SO I have reason to believe I deserve a second chance, please take your time to consider my request

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, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2025 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) Hello! I noticed that you said that you have trouble replying. If you get an error when trying to reply, you need to edit through the normal editing interface. Go to whatever you want to reply to, then scroll up to the nearest pencil icon. Then, scroll back to below the text that you wish to reply to and add your reply with ~~~~ at the end (as it appears here, not in the source). QwertyForest (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what a reply looks like. In the source, there is a colon at the start, which tells the software that this is a reply. Replying with 1 colon would make your comment look like a second reply to my first comment, while replying with 2 colons will make it look like a reply to this. QwertyForest (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's working now, thank you very much! Secret.Sayyid (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]