Hello, I'm A.amitkumar. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Burke's, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  A m i t  웃   19:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of redirects. They don't need to be from "correct" names, but simply from names that a reader might look for. And if you nominate a page for speedy deletion you shouldn't blank it at the same time. That simply makes more work for, and annoys, people reviewing the deletion nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy deletion of Www.burkes-peerage.net again. There are very specific criteria that can be used to speedy delete redirects. You have not specified any criteria that is listed at WP:CSD. You might have a valid argument for a WP:RFD nomination. GB fan 02:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ctfn! 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! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Burke's Peerage Logo (September 2013).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thanks for uploading File:Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bredon Fellow, Mahfouz bin Mahfouz.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 00:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burke's Peerage Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heritage (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) 08:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctfn, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for using sockpuppets abusively at AfDs and in article space. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Atama頭 18:24, 15 April 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Could you please state CLEARLY all reasons for my block - I have no possible way of defending myself without clearly seeing ALL the evidence against me. Thank you.

Decline reason:

See the block message above, and the reasoning at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ctfn/Archive. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:07, 16 April 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have decided to add a reason with a more level head - however, I have left my previous comment in below to show my frustration. I have been looking at comments and edits by ErraticallyIntelligent and BenoitHoog to counteract the arguments against me. With BenoitHoog, I cannot see how the arguments can possibly equate to sockpuppetry, other than they have made multiple edits on the AfD article. On closer inspection BenoitHoog appears to be correcting his username and adding a link. ErraticallyIntelligent on first inspection looks like they have edited the same information as I did previously - but I notice all they did was to disagree with another users reason for a deletion and then undid what was added. As for timings - how can that be argued one way or the other? I have not been suspected of anything malicious or malign before, so why would I need a different account. Again (as per my comment below), please check my registered details. Thank you. Craig. Previous comment: Is there no way for administrators to check registered account details? It is a bit difficult to say I'm not XYZ when it has already been decided that I am two or three other people, because they have shown some support. As a new user it is quite disheartening. It is as though I made comments which perhaps contradicted some long standing user and their only rebut was to accuse me of sockpuppetry, once the first bit of support came along. The "slam-dunk" is very much from the assumption that I am guilty. I would ask you to review my comments left on AfD again - I have responded to other users' "delete" with comments to lend support to my arguments. As is clearly stated - the argument to win is not based on a "vote" system, but rather the reasons we give in response - so there's absolutely no motivation for me to create multiple accounts for voting purposes. I now have no way to defend comments I've left - and please see my comments, which are not even being considered properly - if anything I feel that unfair methods have been used to "voice me out". I was going to leave the issue alone -- but actually - as someone who has actually donated money to Wikipedia - I feel rather offended!!!! I do not expect editing rights for a donation I've given in good faith, but I was not expecting to be treated in this manner!!!! Ctfn (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The SPI is quite clear, and the evidence brought forth by Atama very convincing. It is not the support at the AfD, but rather the totality of editing patterns related to the disputed article. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2014 (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.

Thanks for uploading File:Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz - Coat of Arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mahfouz Foundation, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 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) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mahfouz Foundation, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 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) 01:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? again ?

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctfn, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? again ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.155.137 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:John Burke - Founder of Burke's Peerage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]