User talk:Albert Dawkins

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sami Yusuf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English, MBC and ARTE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

PROD nomination.

I've nominated Pixhug for deletion. My concern is "Not a notable app. The only reference that isn't a re-gurgitated press release is [1], which is launch publicity that doesn't suggest notability." power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Samir Tabar

The article Samir Tabar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Product of an undisclosed paid editing sockfarm; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GAB^gab 19:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital are irrelvant and not related to me. Blocked for socking? I read the whole investigations and they are inconclusive of allegations on my socking. In fact, the blocking admin has taken a punitive action of blocking me over "UPE" in Samir Tabar and Pixhug. This is not justice. these investigations don't confer that I am a sock and that my edits are paid. Please unlock me.

Decline reason:

Your editing has so many connections to that of some other editors, most notably Mfarazbaig, that it is clear that there is a connection which you are not disclosing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2017 (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.

I don't even know who Liborbital is. How can I be labeled as his sock? My edits are legitimate and their quality can be confirmed. Please reconsider kindly. Albert Dawkins (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser indicates you're using a proxy - can you explain this? Max Semenik (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Max! No, I never used any VPN or proxy. I have a local popular dynamic broadband connection, which keeps changing IP address on every on and off. It is possible that the users in question, Mfarazbaig or Zalam4u used the same IP. But I never used any virtual network. Please give me a chance sir. Albert Dawkins (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Please review the investigations. Or initiate new one specifically for me, nowhere the investigation confirms my socking, it says that I am "possible" only sock because of the busy IP ranges. There is no behavioral resemblance with anyone including Mfarazbaig. I never used any proxy too. Please review

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please review the investigations. Or initiate new one specifically for me, nowhere the investigation confirms my socking, it says that I am "possible" only sock because of the busy IP ranges. There is no behavioral resemblance with anyone including Mfarazbaig. I never used any proxy too. Please review |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please review the investigations. Or initiate new one specifically for me, nowhere the investigation confirms my socking, it says that I am "possible" only sock because of the busy IP ranges. There is no behavioral resemblance with anyone including Mfarazbaig. I never used any proxy too. Please review |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please review the investigations. Or initiate new one specifically for me, nowhere the investigation confirms my socking, it says that I am "possible" only sock because of the busy IP ranges. There is no behavioral resemblance with anyone including Mfarazbaig. I never used any proxy too. Please review |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}