User talk:FahadMuhammed

August 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is believed to be a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is permitted, but using them for illegitimate reasons is prohibited, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked (or were blocked in error), you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. We apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 12 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why i am blocked? FahadMuhammed (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As stated above, sockpuppetry; (see this report). In other news, I've salted the tiresome article you keep trying to create. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:52, 13 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry, I am Fahad from Parappanangadi, Let me contact via facebook https://www.facebook.com/fahad.muhammed.7 FahadMuhammed (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block is valid. Yamla (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2016 (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.

Blocks apply for meatpupetry as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:21, 13 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

@Yamla: Why, Can you explain reasons for the "Blocking" FahadMuhammed (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Did you not read Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts linked to in the first decline and closely connected users above? Your ability to make further appeals may be revoked on your next frivolous request. MER-C 08:56, 13 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

@MER-C:What are you saying, I am using only one, This account only, Understand? FahadMuhammed (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We're not getting anywhere here, so I'm revoking talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2016 (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.

Then why didn't you explicitly say so? You have also not satisfactorily explained why your edits are very similar to the accounts listed here. MER-C 09:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, please check my Contributions.FahadMuhammed (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your contributions, including your deleted contributions. You are obviously in violation of WP:SOCK. I could see that without needing confirmation from a checkuser check. Remember, editing on behalf of a blocked user is a violation of WP:SOCK. Either you are the person who was initially blocked (most likely) or you are editing on their behalf (certain, if the first isn't the case). --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the next admin who reviews the unblock request, please revoke talk page access if you decline, as per WP:ICANTHEARYOU. --Yamla (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]