Contributing here

March 2024[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Khalafvand, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by not constructive? Sundayaspect (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means that your edit did not help improve the page. The category is for listing sockpuppets, not to ask general questions. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is not complying with health and safety regulation to post other alleged accounts of another person without providing proof, and that would be not constructive - Regards, Sundayaspect Sundayaspect (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)). Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

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).

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

Request reason:

False block Sundayaspect (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry, excellent block. Yamla (talk) 17:20, 26 March 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.

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

Request reason:

False block Sundayaspect (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For one thing that doesn't make any attempt to address the reasons for the block, and for another, as you know, any unblock request needs to come from your original account. JBW (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]