Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

User talk:Thenightscribe

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Information icon Hello, I'm Ghent123. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ossemsley without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ghent123 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the oversight. I usually make sure to leave an edit summary. Thanks for pointing this out. Thenightscribe (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Ghent123 (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Hatteea

Hi. I have reverted your edits at Saeed Hatteea as they introduced the same problems that various sock accounts have been pushing, namely removal of well sourced content and addition of content that either doesn't accurately reflect the (reliable) sources or isn't in the sources at all. Also, he is notable as a former cricketer, not as a businessman, so we should not include undue detail about this. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for addressing this. I understand your concerns, but after carefully reviewing the sources, I believe we may be overlooking some important details. I've examined the edits made by both yourself and sock accounts, and while I agree that there are many inaccuracies, further research reveals that some of the points raised are valid.
Firstly, when the page was created, significant edits were made by an account under the username "Saeed Hatteea." This raises concerns regarding Wikipedia's policies on living persons, as edits from an account associated with the subject can lead to conflicts of interest. Additionally, while his cricket career is noteworthy, his business ventures appear to be equally significant, if not more so, which should be reflected in the article.
Articles covering his business ventures outnumber those related to his cricket career. Moreover, his current role as chairman of a company with an annual turnover of over £230 million is far from "minor" - it is certainly notable and merits inclusion.
On the issue of content removal: I only removed one source related to his marital status and child. This information was irrelevant to the article’s focus and seemed speculative, especially since it implies, he only has one child without verifying this or accounting for other possibilities.
Finally, regarding his nationality, it’s important to clarify that he is listed as having British nationality, not Indian. According to Indian constitutional law, dual citizenship is not permitted. Additionally, Hatteea is not of Indian ancestry, so he should be described as having been born in India, but not as an "Indian" or “Indian citizen”.
It seems that there may have been a misunderstanding in your edits. Instead of reverting changes outright, it would be helpful if you could point out specific aspects you believe to be incorrect, so we can work together toward a mutually agreeable version. I appreciate your efforts but ask that you consider these points. Thenightscribe (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to bad/unsourced content is not acceptable, per WP:BLP policy and WP:BRD. I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the content is incorrect or unsourced, which is why I’ve asked you to be specific and cite the parts you think are problematic, rather than making full reversions. I’ll initiate a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. Thenightscribe (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the citations for accuracy and made adjustments accordingly. I hope this is more accurate. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to add them to the discussion tab on the article's talk page. Thank you for your help. Thenightscribe (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Wikitestedituk per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikitestedituk. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Izno (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I have been unfairly blocked for sock puppetry, despite my efforts to improve the article in question. The recent sock puppetry was unrelated to my actions, and I can provide evidence from my user talk page and discussion history on the article’s talk page, where I worked collaboratively to enhance the quality and legitimacy of the content. I have consistently engaged in good faith to reach mutual agreements with other editors, which led to meaningful improvements in the article.

I have had no other accounts, and I hold no other accounts on the platform. Additionally, I cannot find any clear evidence that justifies this block. It appears to be based solely on this one article, without taking into account my broader contributions or the context of my actions. I respectfully request a review of this block.

Decline reason:

My use of the checkuser tool confirms that you have abused multiple accounts. Your denials do not outweigh this technical evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (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.

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thenightscribe