User talk:Hassan Guy

Welcome!

Hello, Hassan Guy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as File:NRIET KLJ-7A AESA Radar.jpg, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Majora (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, I'm Gluons12. I noticed that in this edit to Type 039A submarine, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you said that there has been no confirmation that the information in the article is true. However, this doesn't mean that the content can't be on Wikipedia. Even if it isn't true, there are reliable sources which say that it is, and that is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. This essay might be helpful: WP:Verifiability, not truth. If you still think this shouldn't be included, you should probably seek consensus on the article's talk page. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 19:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Type 039A submarine. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 19:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Type 039A submarine, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 13:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Type 039A submarine, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 14:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kalvari-class submarine. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 14:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Pakistan Navy SSP programme. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 09:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you return to your aggressive edit warring and improper removal of maintenance tags your next block will be longer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Pakistan Navy SSP programme. You have been warned many times already. Stop removing maintenance templates, or you will be blocked. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Disruptive Editing

You have been blocked twice for disruptive editing. Please stop. Do not make controversial edits, including addition of unsourced or removal of sourced material from articles without talk page consensus. You are very close to getting a long term block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

None of my edits are disruptive. Those are all useful contributions that have been sourced and can be verified. Hassan Guy (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You claim your edits were all sourced and could be verified. So I took a look through your last ten edits. None of them were sourced except for this one, which is a copyright violation (because you took it from another article without properly attributing it). It's possible if I went further back, I'd find that you have been providing the mandatory citations (WP:CITE) using reliable sources (WP:RS), but at least a significant number of your edits aren't adhering to these requirements. Yamla (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2017 (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.

(edit conflict) This is your 3rd block in a relatively short period of time, for the same behavior. And no, removing maintenance tags w/o discussion or explanation is not a constructive edit, as you have been told repeatedly. If I have to do this again, I am likely going to either block you indefinitely or Topic Ban you from articles dealing with the Pakistani and/or Indian armed forces. I need to remind you that any and all articles dealing with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan are subject to Discretionary Sanctions per this ARBCOM decision. I again urge you to consider whether or not you want to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia or continue in your pattern of disruptive editing. The choice is yours, for now. As I am WP:INVOLVED I will let another Admin review your request to be unblocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: It looks like this editor is block evading under 134.0.193.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 5.36.76.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now. Can you take a look and do what needs to be done? Thanks. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 09:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion and disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again?

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).

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

Request reason:

4th time I have been blocked. My edits aren't disruptive, I have been trying to create a new article and update the information however this keeps on being undone by User:MBlaze Lightning Why is it that he is the one not being blocked?

Decline reason:

You've been blocked four times and have not changed your behavior; and you've been evading the block by editing without logging in. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:29, 28 January 2017 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Hassan Guy, 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.

Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update

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).

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

Request reason:

Just want to leave this message in regards to my ban, I can understand and admit that some of my work in the past was against the guidelines, but I do believe I have done my time and that I can operate as a constructive member here and that I do in fact deserve a last chance. I have had altercations here before and I hope we can have more 3rd party moderation to help keep personal bias away. I really want to be a part of this website and help contribute.

Decline reason:

You had four chances already. That seems plentiful. Your unblock request still does not indicate that you understand why your edits were problematic, or what you would do differently if unblocked. Personal bias is not the issue. Huon (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do understand I was blocked 4 times but as I mentioned I do believe I have done my time, I've been blocked for over 6 months. I do understand my edits where problematic and I know now not to do them again.

Decline reason:

Just saying you understand is not sufficient; a lot of blocked editors say that they understand when they very clearly do not. You will need to explain exactly, what change you will make in your editing if unblocked. You are also required to explain the block evasion of some two months ago. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:22, 23 July 2017 (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.

It is not the case you have been blocked for more than 6 months. We also believe you engaged in block evasion just two months ago. --Yamla (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If given the chance, I can show that i've changed in a trial period I can prove myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan Guy (talk • contribs)