Jump to content

User talk:Festivalfalcon873

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Festivalfalcon873, 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 at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

Please help me with... I need help with making final editing on my draft article and then moving into the article page from sandbox. Here is the link to the article under Battle of Chenab 1764, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Festivalfalcon873/sandbox. Please get back to me on here on making the article live from sandbox. Thank you. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, it appears you have already created the same as the draft Draft:Battle of Chenab and submitted for review. There is a backlog so please be patient but it will be reviewed. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Chenab (December 4)[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 Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Battle of Chenab instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.
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 after they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Festivalfalcon873! Having an article draft 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Festivalfalcon873! Your additions to Draft:Battle of Amritsar 1762 have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Here's a token of appreciation for making Battle of Sirikot (1824) Ronnie Macroni (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Abecedare[edit]

Hello, Festivalfalcon873. You have new messages at Abecedare's talk page.
Message added 02:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

I realize that the feedback you have received with regards to the Battle of Sirikot (1824) draft cannot be pleasant. But hopefully you'll take this as a opportunity to improve the draft and avoid similar issues in future creations. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Amritsar 1762[edit]

Information icon Hello, Festivalfalcon873. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Amritsar 1762, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Battle of Amritsar 1762[edit]

Hello, Festivalfalcon873. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Battle of Amritsar 1762".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Battle of Sirikot (1824)[edit]

Hello, Festivalfalcon873. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Battle of Sirikot".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 08:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Chenab for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Chenab is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chenab until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Noorullah (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Festivalfalcon873,
Please learn how to appropriately nominate an article for an AFD discussion. Another editor "fixed" your incorrect postings. You also need to sign all comments you make on Wikipedia everywhere on the project except for article space. Please do so in the future. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Liz for explaining this too me I will note to use the four tildes at the end of the comment. Could you let know me what was incorrect about the AFD editing wise that needs to be fixed for future times? (Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ali Masjid (1839)[edit]

Thank you for contacting me. The only Keep views on that AfD were yours and that of Alvin1783. Both of you were only addressing the issue of WP:RAJ, which was not the only relevant guideline, and not the sole reason for the nomination. That isn't surprising, since both you and Alvin1783 are very inexperienced with English Wikipedia, and most of your contributions are around this and similar pages. Owen× ☎ 23:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Owen, thanks for getting back to me. I started editing little over 2 years back but I am still learning along the way from both positive and negative feedbacks. Going back to the article, I believe the main complaint as I'm quoting was: "Another one of these pages. -- Poorly sourced with sources that fail WP:HISTRS, some sources also fall under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)". After removing all the WP:RAJ sources , the nominator then complained of couple sources being from non-historians according to him and these were then replaced and fixed. As far as I can see the article was backed with reasonably well with credible sources thereafter. Could you identify to me which other reason was left that needed to be fixed? Thanks again. (Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even after the changes, consensus was that sources still didn't meet WP:HISTRS. Owen× ☎ 00:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify which sources did not meet WP:HISTRS in this article page Battle of Ali Masjid 1839? Thanks. (Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From start to the end of the discussion, I agree that the article was being fixed to address both the WP:RAJ,  WP:HISTRS nomination complaints pointed out earlier and thereafter the changes that were made eliminated both of these issues. I believe the sources referenced at the end did meet WP:HISTRS in the article itself after it was cleaned up. If otherwise you can let me know. (Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

Hello Abecedare,
According to Wikipedia a sock puppet is a “On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account.”
I want to assure I have only one account on Wikipedia as tested by the IP address in the past. My attempt to fix article does not mean I am running more then one account. This has been one and only account since multiple years. However, it has come to my attention of these false blame games to silent users to distort history on Wikipedia. This will only ruin the credibility of Wikipedia going forward if this is how things are handled. The main relation to other accounts that are blamed by Southasianhistorian is their interest in Sikh history. The issue that was presented in regards to Wikipedia article was being fixed, and the last time the SPI investigation was ran it showed no proof of sock puppetry. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Festivalfalcon873, I have undone the block I had applied since I have previously critiqued your content contribution and that makes me the wrong admin to apply the block even though I continue to believe that you are a sock of Alvin1783 (talk · contribs) and hence HaughtonBrit. Abecedare (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I am not sock of anyone and I have only this account since 2 plus years since when I first joined the Wikipedia community and your critiqued my work one year ago. I appreciate you rewarding me in the past for my contribution and I appreciate your efforts today. Thank you. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved admin, I have re-blocked Festivalfalcon873 per the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. See Abecedare's block notice for how to appeal. Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Festivalfalcon873, I have received your emails but would prefer any communication to be on-wiki. And while I may opine on the issue, any decision to retain or lift the block will be made by an uninvolved admin and not me. So your comments would be better directed to the blocking admin, Bishonen, or to an independent admin who you could request to review the block. For the latter, just follow the instructions in the block notice posted at the top of this section. Abecedare (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare I went ahead and messaged Bishonen and will wait for the response but I think your opinion on the matter is just as important even though it doesn't affect outcome or any decision itself on the matter. If you want to reply your opinion on the matter I will be willing to listen. Thanks. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock conditions offered[edit]

I have received your e-mail, Festivalfalcon873. Your explanation fails to account for your statement at the SPI that you don't "know any of the users mentioned in this investigation." If you wish, I can unblock you in exchange for an indefinite topic ban from all pages and discussions related to India, Pakistan, and/or Afghanistan. This would be for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of meatpuppetry and POV pushing. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. Do you accept this condition? You should think about it carefully, and you are free to instead appeal the block to an uninvolved admin, by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below (curly brackets and all).

If you do accept my offered condition, the topic ban can be appealed after six months, on either WP:AN or WP:AE, and every six months thereafter. You would be wise to edit in other areas during the ban, so that you have constructive editing to point to when/if you appeal. Bishonen | tålk 10:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Festivalfalcon873, you have now sent me the exact same e-mail again. By mistake, I presume. Anyway, see my response above. Bishonen | tålk 21:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen Thank you, I received your response. Let me explain further on my statement so its clear on what my stand was and is. I do not know any of these users in this investigation on a personal level as I have separate IP addresses in regards to the allegation put on me that I am using multiple accounts and doing any sock puppetry. I know these individuals as friends only online on different social media platforms. For example, in my SPI case investigation which included another user RangerRus, this person I do not know on personal level but only online on this wikipedia plaform. Neither do I know about the other person or Historian2325 which was put into the same SPI investigation. From my understanding, I do not know either of these users anywhere else on other social media platforms unless they have different online usertag that I am unaware of, in regards to Alvin who I know on another social media platform , but this user had different user tag then the one shown on wikipedia. For example, on other social media platforms these users may have different online user tags which I am unfamiliar with. Regardless it is only online that I have have had interactions with any of these users. I hope this clears what my statement meant. In regards to my investigation, it included only one other individual which was RangerRus.
"10 May 2024[edit source] – This SPI case is open. Suspected sockpuppets[edit source]
Going back to the proposed condition, the original blame of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit was that I am sockpuppet and according to Wikipedia this is defined as, "On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account."
To answer to this accusation, I want to reassert the fact that I have only one account (current one) which I have had for the past 2+ years and have no connection with any other user in regards to subjecting me to HaughtonBrits case. I am not related to any other account and have a separate address and have separate interests which at times collide with other users on this platform. I am still learning about the codes on Wikipedia and consider myself as a beginner level learner who is only getting more knowledgeable about how things are done on Wikipedia. As Yamla pointed out there is technical procedures which can verify this fact, such as VPN detecting tools or proxy use.---- "Note that one of my VPN detecting tools (out of three) is not currently functioning. Nevertheless, I looked hard for proxy use. Other checkusers may have more luck but I'd hate to subject them to HaughtonBrit SPIs." I am willing to be tested under any sort of technical procedure which can verify my stand of being sole user with a single account since over 2 plus years on the Wikipedia platform. This is the reason I am looking to appeal the block that has been put on my account which false accusations by another user on the platform. I want to know your thoughts on how you can help me proceed further on this matter. Thank you. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen,@Abecedare, do note that this statement: "Note that one of my VPN detecting tools (out of three) is not currently functioning. Nevertheless, I looked hard for proxy use. Other checkusers may have more luck but I'd hate to subject them to HaughtonBrit SPIs." was said by Yamla in regards to Historian2325,not Alvin1783. Secondly, as I pointed out both in the SPI and Bishonen's t/p, HaughtonBrit has an incredibly long history of evading CU blocks, which can once again be confirmed through his MehmoodS, Finmas, and Dazzem accounts.
The evidence presented here-[1] along with the blatant connection to Alvin1783 is more than enough for a DUCK block. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your involvement in this case holds as the accuser which is not neutral standpoint and your opinion on the matter is not important, you are here to push the blame game further and have used this same threat to other users on the platform whenever you do not get your way (see below)----
"All I can say to everyone involved is to wait for the SPI I will file. This time I will put much more effort into making it concise and thorough as possible; last time I made the mistake of writing things off the top of my head, I won't do that next time. Lastly, a CU check was never ran on RangersRus, only a behavioural analysis was done- HB's sock accounts like Finmas & Dazzem were previously also deemed unrelated, but were later blocked on the grounds of duck edits with HB's IPs, proxies and SPAs. Historian2325, another suspected sock account, was also checked last year and was found to be unrelated, but since then he's made numerous duck edits and will likely also be blocked. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)"[reply]
I do not know you personally but it seems you are here to personally attack me on the Wikipedia platform making this a toxic environment. This is case of caste aspersions which should not be tolerated by the Wikipedia community. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich coming from a sockmaster who made these comments about me -[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. And that's not even counting the thousands of edits relentlessly trying to impede me as well as the numerous failed SPIs you filed against me. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have never filed a SPI against you and no none of these comments are mine either. I have only crossed hundred edits so far and have reach yet to reach a thousand edits on this platform. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen, forgot to mention a few details, firstly Alvin1783 was created roughly the same time as another one of his socks, Elifanta23, who similar to the 3 accounts in the SPI, tried to undermine my AFD-[7]. There is just a 6 day gap between Elifanta and Alvin's account creation, and both accounts have used the same tactic of pretending that they're from Europe-Elifanta23 saying "but I am from Europe, Belgium" whereas Alvin1783 was pretending to be from Germany, trying to pass of .de Google Book results, and in a few (now deleted) edits, went out of his way to modify his edits which had the .com domain to .de , see also where he again emphasizes his different location from Festivalfalcon and one of the proxies he was using which geolocates to Germany(used on his now deleted page)-[8].
HB trying to pass off two sock accounts as "meatpuppets" or working together off wiki is something he has done before- see Ralx888's talk page, when I filed the SPI against Javerine, HB created another account and pretended that they were both different accounts emailing each other and being in touch off-wiki in order to create articles that valourize their religion. Which is exactly what is going on with these 2 accounts-[9], [10] +both accounts were working in tadem to try to "fix" the Battle of Ali Masjid article, [11], [12], [13]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that you have only one account, Festivalfalcon. But per your own statement in one of your e-mails to me, you have violated the prohibition of WP:MEAT. Meatpuppetry is as serious as sockpuppetry and is sanctioned in the same way, which you must surely be aware of if you have read WP:SOCK. I quote: Recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." I won't share your personal information in this public space, but you know what I'm talking about. Both you and the other user involved have engaged in persistent POV violations, and helped each other to do so. I see you rather carefully talk around these facts above, mentioning various users but not the one you have been colluding with. As for proceeding further in this matter, I suggest you either accept my offer above, or appeal to an uninvolved admin by using the template {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Try to be more upfront about the facts of the case if you do post such an appeal, and don't waste time denying things that I and Abecedare are not accusing you of. Compare especially Abecedare's SPI comment here. Southasianhistorian8, thank you for your information in the SPI, but please stop posting on this page now. It has reached the point of diminishing returns. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 04:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Final comment: Bishonen, I've been dealing with this sockmaster almost non stop since 2021, I'm very well aware of his tactics and how he's exploiting numerous throwaway accounts since his account MehmoodS was blocked, to create as much chaos and disarray as possible, in order to dissuade people from taking action against his accounts. With all due respect, I strongly disagree with your assessment that this is a case of meatpuppetry and would urge another look at the evidence I provided in the SPI; what is going on here is an attempt to diminish his sockpuppetry and supplant it with claims of meatpuppetry instead, allowing him to get a lighter sentence. It is incredibly jarring to see his pernicious tactics and games being entertained by admins. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I will assume good faith here and believe Festivalfalcon's assurances, Southasianhistorian8. Checkuser Drmies found nothing in the technical record that ties them to any other account. And the sanction for meatpuppetry obviously isn't lighter than that for sockpuppetry: Festivalfalcon873 has been indefinitely blocked. Bishonen | tålk 05:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Festivalfalcon873&oldid=1228242722"