User talk:Suhail11

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

I deleted a user page which I created wrongly[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Suhail11[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Suhail11 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

I was trying to create an article and ended up creating this, which I feel is wrongly created.

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. Suhail11 (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Brownlie-Marshall (July 31)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DGG were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:

This is written in a promotional manner, not an an encyclopedic biography. Try removing adjectives and expressions of praise or excellence as the first step. And give the references in fuller form, as specified in WP:REFBEGN, so it's easier to see their significance. If they are essentially PR, they won't serve for notability . And I notice he actually won only one award, not three.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Richard Brownlie-Marshall and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Richard Brownlie-Marshall, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Suhail11! Having an article 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! DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Swipe to Unlock (September 9)[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 Whispering was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Swipe to Unlock and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Swipe to Unlock, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering^(t) 19:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

Hello Suhail11. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Suhail11. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Suhail11|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Answer[edit]

Hi GSS, I've made the disclosure in the user page. Regards Suhail11 (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disclosing your paid editing status. As per WP:Paid, please provide links on your Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where you advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services e.g. any Upwork account etc. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Is it against wiki guidelines to advertise wikipedia editing services? If I disclose the account, will it be banned or deleted? Suhail11 (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not against the policies, and your account won't be blocked for disclosing, but yes it can be blocked for "not" complying with full disclosure. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I am trying to disclose it but not sure how to go about it. It is not allowing me to use the link of my service. Can you please guide me? Also, I left a message on your talk page, please answer that too.Suhail11 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GSS, I've made the disclosure. Please check it and let me know if it is done right. Suhail11 (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to disclose all accounts you've used since being at Wikipedia. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GSS, I have been using one account only and the link of the gig I gave in the user page. Does it look okay? Suhail11 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, 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, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong deletion - My account is not sock puppet[edit]

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).

Suhail11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block reason is totally wrong. My account is not sock puppet and I do not have multiple accounts. Reinstate my account, please. I would appreciate if someone can unblock it soon. It has already been 5 days. Suhail11 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A simple denial is not sufficient to address sock puppetry; you must address the claim itself as to why it is thought that you are a sock puppet. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2019 (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.

How can I address it? Can you please explain it? The person who blocked it must show the evidence of sock puppet. I have read the page on sock puppet, it does not tell how someone can prove it otherwise. What I can say in my defense is that I do not have multiple accounts. I am not involved in any unscrupulous activities. I just described in my user page that I submitted a page on behalf of someone. It was paid. Where should I complain? I find editors here are not very supportive, sorry to say! Suhail11 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

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).

Suhail11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for sock puppet, which I believe means I am using multiple accounts on wikipedia. I've explained it previously, I only have one account which I am using right now. I'm not sure how can I give proof about it. Being an admin, I'm sure you would have some way to check it. If you could explain me how can I provide proof, I'd gladly do it. Secondly, I believe my account is blocked because I was making paid edits, which I failed to mention in the talk page. I didn't know about this policy and I did add the disclosure when an admin informed me about it. I won't repeat my mistakes again and genuinely wants to contribute for the community. Any advice how can I provide evidence of my innocence would be greatSuhail11 (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account. -- Deep fried okra 09:02, 5 January 2020 (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.

@Deepfriedokra: Noting that this does not appear to be a checkuserblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Sock block, so the GAB is the best bet. No objection if anyone can see their way clear to an unblock.-- Deep fried okra 10:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this is not a CU block, this user's (now deleted) SEOclerks profile (see their user page) contained reviews for articles known to be created by LumCel sockpuppets. I would strongly advise against unblocking this account until a plausible explanation for this is provided. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: Can you please explain how can I give plausabile explanation. I'm not clear what you mean by 'contained review for articles known to be created by LumCell'. Who is 'Lumcell'? and what reviews are you referring here. How a review on my gig related to sock puppet? Can you please explain Yunshui!Suhail11 (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When it was still up, your SEOclerks page contained a review for a page you created, Duraskirt. This account never created that article; on Wikipedia, that page was created by User:PoppyMurder11. PoppyMurder11 is a sockpuppet of LumCel. It stands to reason that this account is also being operated by the LumCel sockfarm. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: Thank you for the details, Yunshui. While I don't exactly remember what was the case then, I never used any other account to create any page or edit any content. I always ask the client to give me feedback first and close the order before I make changes. So, if I didn't create the page, it means I either edited it a little or I never edited it. In other words, the review by client doesn't reveal if I created the page, neither it tells if I edited it, since I get feedback prior to changes. Suhail11 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yunshui. I needed the info. Suhail11 I don't now if anyone's done this, so I'll just leave these here. WP:UPE, WP:COI, WP:PAID. And even if you individually never editied, you appear to have coordinated off wiki, and for hire. This the WP:SOCK problem. -- Deep fried okra 16:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS[edit]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Suhail11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #28451 was submitted on 2020-01-09 11:46:46. This review is now closed.

Draft:Richard Brownlie-Marshall concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Richard Brownlie-Marshall, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Richard Brownlie-Marshall[edit]

Hello, Suhail11. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Richard Brownlie-Marshall".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]