User talk:Child Star Grown Up

Aslam o Alikum! Here you Can Talk to me.

Photography

Hello Child Star Grown Up, My name is Howicus. I'm writing to tell you that I undid an edit that you added to Photography, because it seemed like a Copyright violation (see this link for more information). The section you added had been directly copied from this site [1]. Material that violates copyright is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, contact me at my talk page. Thanks, Howicus (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Child Star Grown Up, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Editing Islam-related articles

Please read MOS:ISLAM. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

This edit is a personal attack directed at some pretty obvious targets and displays a battleground mentality. Wikipedia requires neutrality and civility, and if you cannot edit in that matter, you will be blocked from editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read through wP:RS, our guideline for reliable sources. Most online sites do not qualify as reliable sources, unless they have an editorial staff which has a history of adequate fact checking, like major newspapers, scholarly sites, etc. Additionally, the sources need to be neutral if we're using them for factual information. Do all of the sources you just added to Barelvi meet those standards?

Finally, as a new editor, you may not know that Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. Per wP:BRD, if you make a big change to an article, and then you're reverted (as happened to you), you generally should not re-revert, and instead open a discussion on the article's talk page about the suggested edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child Star Grown Up, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Child Star Grown Up! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Reason of my block.

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).

Child Star Grown Up (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this is investigation of some user why are you showing and relating it to me. Child Star Grown Up (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

you are blocked as being a sockpuppet, which is to say a user of multiple accounts. In relation to your comment below,you are not accused of abusing any other person.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:16, 16 March 2013 (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.

blocked Child Star Grown Up (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts

where i abused someone?

hundreds of users edit sunni related articles daily why are you relating me to someone just because i edited sunni articles?

i dont know what others did why are you trying to blame me for them?

how many other users created wikipedia account on 5 march?

as concerned with antisalafi attitude see barelvi page.yeah i am a barelvi and i dont prefer salafi.every barelvi dont prefer slafi am not new.^[1]

as you are listing my ip range.millions of peoples are using this service provider and all of them has that kind of ips(depends upon location and ISP).^[2]

this is not right reasons for blocking me.so i request administrator to unblock my profile coz i have been blocked for inappropriate reasons.
Dont Target anyone just by Suppose.

You're a sockpuppet/sockpuppeter, confirmed by a CheckUser, based on both technical evidence (IP/location/other things), and behavioural evidence. Abusing multiple accounts means you have used multiple accounts to make unconstructive edits. I see no way this unblock request could work. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioural evidence are supposed and as concerned with ip as i early discribed above.ISPs doesnt provide static ip.ip will be related depending upon isp and location of user.

A full sockpuppet investigation found that you had abused multiple accounts. You've not done anything to refute that point. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

request

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).

Child Star Grown Up (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Allow me to do useful contributations Child Star Grown Up (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock. You have failed to address the sockpuppetry issue.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:06, 14 May 2013 (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.

one day i was searching some articles on google i saw a religious article with some bad faiths.i edited them which was concidered as vendlization(when i was unaware that how to edit wikipedia).i stoped that and created an account to do useful contributations which again blocked for SPI.I want to do useful contributation.let me do that.Child Star Grown Up (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't make an official decision on this, but you have used sock puppets multiple times, as recently as last week. And the edits of those sock puppets have violated numerous WP policies, especially WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but the unblock request, and the text below by them, shows no awareness that what CSGU did was wrong, or of the fact that their socks have raised frivolous and retaliatory allegations against any user whom disagreed with them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:11, 14 May 2013 (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).

Child Star Grown Up (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there is not any ABUSE of multiple accounts for bad purpose.these were just to edit and didnt violated any policy. Child Star Grown Up (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As User:Trust on ALLAH you were blocked on March 3rd. You then created this account on March 4th. Creating a new account when your previous account is blocked constitutes block evasion and is an abuse of multiple accounts. Editing logged out while blocked is also block evasion. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to go back to your original account and make a request there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (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.

in my previous request an admin said that you failed to adress your request now i am writing in detail. it was started in 2011 when i made an account named Trust on ALLAH.after that i didnt made any edit.after some years i have seen some religious articles on wikipedia i used to edit it(by ip then by account mentioned above which others reverted and conciderd as vendlization) i was completly new on wiki and was not aware with even a single abc of wiki.after that i made an account User:Child Star Grown Up suddenly.which was blocked by an spi.i leaved the wikipedia.after some months one day i thought to join wikipedia and created an account User:Am Not New wikipedia which again blocked as sockpuppet.

at these three times i was trying to edit wikipedia not violating any rule. now about Qwyrxian.where i used multple account to violate wikipedia see my account there is is dfference of days and months.i didnt used two account at a time.i didnt used socks for edit warring or to force edit.and i was being monitored by many users and you also.why didnt you blocked my if i was violating rules.mr admin see my logs there is not a single block log.and it was you who was agree with my sources.and lukeno was also agree with my sources in some links.

Lukeno94 your blame warrent more details. if you are talking about user who made an spi on you.I want to place a record(wether you believe or not) that this is not my account.someone used my type of language and words to target users.you will ask proof.technical evidences.among ALL my accounts there was a template Likely.in spi of that user there was a template "possible" it is definatly not my account.

Moral:there is not any ABUSE of multiple accounts for bad purpose.these were just to edit and didnt violated any policy.Child Star Grown Up (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you admit that some of the previous accounts were yours, however, once one account was blocked, you simply created another to evade your block. You've also made no attempt at addressing the fact that your edits, with all accounts, generally were unsourced and that you have also made frivolous, retaliatory allegations about myself and other users. You were block evading two days ago, editing with an IP, and using it to disrupt an ANI thread and a discussion on the Barelvi article. I hope that the admin whom reviews this doesn't unblock, at least yet, especially as you haven't admitted to your actions following Am Not New's block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why didnt you used an spi to find who is that ip.and what are Am Not News actions.wlukeno94 your blames warrent details.Child Star Grown Up (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC) and regarding you accusation that when one account block you got another.i was not aware then what to do?and lukeno94s claims are baseless.i didnt used any ip and didnt violated any policyChild Star Grown Up (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I did. The IP was blocked as a meatpuppet. My claims aren't baseless, check out the archives of the SPIs against you (and the frivolous one you filed against MezzoMezzo and I). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First ip is of Ghulam Mehar Ali.which i am not as i made comments above.second is also not mine see comments of clerk there.he didnt used SPI he blocked just for safety as he written.and i admin to check these ips by a checkuser.please dont go by lukeno.Child Star Grown Up (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why your unblock request was denied is listed above. All your arguing here will do you no good. You've been caught evading a block and have admitted doing as much here. There's nothing else to say. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ common sense
^ realy you can try to use to see that

[1] sense

[2] realy you can try to use to see that

[1]

[2]