User talk:Nauman335

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 10:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Are you in your senses. You are repeatedly doing the same senseless edits again and again on articles related to Pakistani television. Like, you should know that official posters or title cards have blank caption parameter and in episode parameter only episodes aired are mentioned. By this thime, I am reverting your this edit. Contribute in Wikipedia by constructive edits. Thanks. 59.103.217.47 (talk) 59.103.217.47 (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@59.103.217.47 but i made a Detailed in Episodes Section with Present for better understanding that is the Current Episode it is and The Title card is for understanding the poster Nauman335 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using the nonsense format of present in parenthesis, use the format of "" where date till specific epsides is mentioned inside, such as . In case of caption, follow the Wikipedia norms otherwise you will be blocked from editing. It is understandable if the caption is not present then the image is official title card or poster of the series. 59.103.217.47 (talk) 59.103.217.47 (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 2023 Asia Cup, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 Thanks for Appreciate

i want say that flag icons in info box represent the more detailed for a country Nauman335 (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 and i request to make me a full editor because i want to block some unusual editors on Wikipedia Nauman335 (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chenab Rail Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arch Bridge. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot Thanks for recommendation and now i have fixed this link article bug. Nauman335 (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

WP:Controversy section says that we shouldn't have controversy sections, and it was also written in barely understandable English (something which the user that keeps adding it has been warned about). There's a discussion at Talk:2023 Cricket World Cup#Ticket issue about how much to add, but your re-added section is way too much detail and is thus POV. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 ok but this section was so understanding about Tickets Nauman335 (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's too long, written in poor English, and is aimed solely at complaining about ticket website, which isn't WP:NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 ok we should have to short this section Nauman335 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal Empire

Nauman335 (talk · contribs)

Please note that the lead and info box in Mughal Empire are the result of a longstanding administered-supervised consensus. We are not at liberty to change it and offer our explanation in casual edit summaries. If you are interested in changing either, please open a new thread on Talk:Mughal Empire, explain what you want to do and why. You must then wait for the input of other editors and for a consensus to emerge. That usually takes time, often several weeks, if not longer. In other words, you cannot open a thread, make a post there, and quickly thereafter, change the lead or info box to your version. Please read WP:ONUS which is Wikipedia policy. Please also read WP:BRD, which is sound advice for interaction.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't continue to add images, as you have done, for example, with Babur's and another on Mughal Empire, especially in sections that cannot accommodate more images (in other words, have already all the images those sections' text can sustain without the images dipping into the section below, and thereby violating either MOS:ACCIM #9, or MOS:IMAGES#Sandwich. This is my final warning. If you do not self-revert your last edit before you make other edits on Wikipedia, I shall be posting on the user talk pages of some administrators and you will very likely be looking at penalties. Please be warned, you cannot violate WP policy. WP:ONUS states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You need to achieve that on Talk:Mughal Empire and not by WP:Edit warring in emblazoned edit summaries. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

Please don't use "fixed typo" as an edit summary unless it actually is a typo. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm i was just saving my Time and fixing bugs Nauman335 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not fixing bugs, you're adding images and making other content changes. You again incorrectly labelled this edit as "fixed a typo", when in fact you messed with the headings of the article. Please be more careful. R Prazeres (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing the Mughal architecture article. Your earlier edits have already been reverted and I have already told you that you're breaking the section layout and mislabeling your edits, yet you are continuing to do so. R Prazeres (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres just fix the Section lines and Don't remove the Pictures in article Nauman335 (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. I told you why the images were reverted and you repeated both the images and the section errors. Please note the notice I posted below about edit-warring and familiarize yourself with that policy. If you want to propose changes at this time, please explain yourself on the article's talk page instead. See WP:BRD for general guidelines on how to proceed next time your edits are reverted. R Prazeres (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mughal architecture. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. R Prazeres (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres just fix section lines and Don't undo images Nauman335 (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman335, do you understand what edit-warring is, after the explanation above? R Prazeres (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres i have fixed my fool edits Nauman335 (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't, you repeated the same edits ([1]) and you haven't fixed them. Can you please answer my question above? Do you understand the edit-warring policy? R Prazeres (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres yes i have understand Nauman335 (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then will you please revert your edits, and explain yourself on the talk page instead? R Prazeres (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres i have not repeat the edits i have undo my edits and add some missing images Nauman335 (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~You obviously don't understand, since that response makes no sense. R Prazeres (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nevermind, I see that you have fixed the last heading problems. However, I already told you here that there isn't enough room in the article for the images you are adding, which are also disrupting the layout of the article. You also repeated the Taj Mahal image that is already in the lead. Please revert all your edits, and discuss changes on the talk page instead, as you should have done the first time you were reverted. And again, please stop saying "fixed typo". R Prazeres (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres i was just add some missing images Nauman335 (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "missing" images, and please respect the process of WP:CONSENSUS. Revert them. R Prazeres (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres i know i have just add repeat image of Taj mahal Nauman335 (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres I'm removing taj mahal picture only because it was added Nauman335 (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Again, do not use "Fixed typo" as an Edit summary when you are adding or subtracting content, as you recently did at Vitamin C. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD i have fixed the terms so i used fixed typo Nauman335 (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. You added a name of a brand product to a short list of brand names. That is not "Fixed typo", which would apply, for example, to an existing brand name that was not spelled correctly. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, revert, discuss cycle at Mughal Empire

Your recent bold edit at Mughal Empire was reverted. Per BRD, it's time to discuss at Talk:Mughal Empire how you believe the map you want to insert improves readers' understanding of the topic. Let's see if a consensus can form regarding the map. Please don't edit war by reinstating your preferred version in the meantime.

There are already four maps in the article, including one captioned "The empire at its greatest extent in c. 1700 under Aurangzeb". It comes from a reliable source. File:Mughal_Empire_(1700).png does not say what source(s) it is based on. You'll need to explain that and why its southern border looks distinctly different from the sourced map. Worldbruce (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV and misleading summaries

Here and here your edit summaries were misleading. Unconfirmed reports and disinformation are different things and even if they were related you should have merged them rather than deleting sourced information. In the other case you removed all the information about Israeli victims from the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 18:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis in the top section you have only telling about Israel details and deaths not hamas Details and deaths Nauman335 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. The number of killed Palestinians was in the lede before your edit and you did not remove it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis i revert your edit please don't undo it Nauman335 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis This was telling only that number of Israel civilians died and some missing and Massacre but you don't add that Israel kill Palestine in war, total blockade and Deaths Nauman335 (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alaexis_¿question? 19:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom4U Shutup you fake editor Nauman335 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 21:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi

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).

Nauman335 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have logged in to my account from many months.I am here now to build an Encyclopedia because now i have read all Wikipedia policies and Manual of Style.Please unblock to my account.i will not repeat my fool edits and contribution without proper knowledge.I request you to Unblock me from Wikipedia

Decline reason:

This does not address your violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. You continued editing inappropriately using those accounts, so it's pretty clear you still aren't here to be constructive. Yamla (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2023 (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.

Unblock Request

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).

Nauman335 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was unaware from Wikipedia Editing Policies and Conditions.I have read everything with details and I know what is my Purpose of Editing.I will not Revise my Past edits.I request you to Again to Unblock My Account Please.I Request you to Unblock me from Wikipedia.Thanks Nauman335 (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't need you to "read everything", nor do I think you actually did; I haven't and I'm an administrator. You need to specifically speak to your violation of the policies described by Yamla above. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (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.

Unblock 3

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).

Nauman335 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was unaware from Wikipedia Editing Policies and Conditions.I have read everything with details and I know what is my Purpose of Editing.I will not Revise my Past edits.I request you to Again to Unblock My Account Please.I Request you to Unblock me from Wikipedia.Thanks

Decline reason:

Exact same request already declined. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:58, 8 November 2023 (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.

Nauman335 (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't even mention your abuse of WP:SOCK to WP:EVADE your block. Additionally, your capitalization of random words is bizarre and indicates you are unable to communicate effectively on Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #80925 is closed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please concisely and clearly describe how your editing merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information.. As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. Please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request 4

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).

Nauman335 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was a new Editor on Wikipedia and I was making just better edits.My mistake was that ' I was unaware from Wikipedia Manual of Style and Edit war '.I feel guilty on it and i promise to not repeat my Past mistakes.I was also unaware from Sockpuppet account like.I request To Unblock me from Wikipedia English.I making this Unboxing Request 4 th time.Please let me to edit on Wikipedia and I will not repeat my past mistakes from this Account.Please unblock me.I request To Unblock me from Wikipedia.Thanks

Decline reason:

As stated below, six months with ZERO edits before we will consider an unblock. This means do not reply to this request. Do not continue to ask for clarification. In six months time, come back to request an unblock and it will be reviewed in due course. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2023 (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.

Confirmed sockpuppetry during these unblock requests, as I'm NaUmAn MaLiK. --Yamla (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Confirmed Nnn edits. This user is deliberately trolling and is closer to a ban under WP:3X than any sort of unblock. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Yes confirmed,

These accounts are the same.I acknowledge these accounts. Nauman335 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING TO EVADE YOUR BLOCK? This clearly demonstrates you haven't the slightest intention of abiding by our policies. --Yamla (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla When i Blocked from 3 accounts, then i read all the All Wikipedia Manuals and Conditions then i Appeals the Unblock Request.I now again i request to Unblock my Account Nauman335

Thanks Nauman335 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Will you unblock me from Wikipedia ? I'm requesting this 5th Time that Please unblock me. Nauman335 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your best bet is to remove your open unblock request and go six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. At the moment, you are far, far closer to a ban than to an unblock, given your rampantly abusive behaviour. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla But i have not made any abusive behavior and why are you not unblocking me. Nauman335 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every single edit you made with any of your other accounts was abusive. Every single edit was in violation of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. --Yamla (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla So, i have to wait 6 months with a login account or log off account Nauman335 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero edits including to this talk page. ZERO EDITS. No edits with this account, no edits with another account, no edits after logging out. NO EDITS. Starting after you remove your open unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Ok I'm going on and i will return after 6 months. Nauman335 (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Original Account: Nauman335

Other accounts :

I'm NaUmAn MaLiK

Nnn edits

N.edits335 Nauman335 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

Because of your continued deliberate violations of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK, you are now considered banned by the Wikipedia community as per WP:3X. No admin is free to unilaterally lift your ban and any contributions you make while evading this ban may be reverted and deleted. --Yamla (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Nauman335 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm so sorry to the Wikipedia community that i accused of being many Sockpuppet accounts and many accounts blocked which do not belong to me and Blocked as my Sock account. I just heard that it has been a long time and I'm here to make the Request to lift the ban or block from my Account because Much of Wikipedia has been understood by me in these blocks months from my sock accounts

Decline reason:

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335, you must have checkuser approval to be unblocked. Your unblock request must be carried to WP:AN for community review as you are WP:CBANned. You are not eligiiable for unblock consideration until August 14, 2024. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:51, 15 February 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.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you wrote, but it has not been six months. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

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.

Unblock My Ban or Block

User:Yamla , Hello - Hope you will be Fine. I'm here and I Log in My This User:Nauman335 original account. I feel very guilty and i have been shamed on my Sock accounts and My Conflicting edits. I created more than 10 accounts on Wikipedia which was blocked as the Reason of Sockpuppets. I'm just here to Ask you that, Please lift my ban or Give me advice to Reopen this User:Nauman335 account. Because i feel very guilty and I accept that I'm accused of many Sock accounts and I noticed that many other accounts have blocked that was not belongs to me. Please Suggest me that what i can do. Thank you Nauman335 (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing for you to do until you go at least six months with zero edits. We aren't going to believe any denials from you as we've caught you lying before. I'll note you were caught evading your block just a few days ago; six months from today is 2024-08-29 and we hope to hear nothing from you until at least then. --Yamla (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Ok Nauman335 (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla I will not make any edits or make any accounts and I will wait till 2024-August-29 as you say.

Thank you Nauman335 (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This turned out to be a blatant lie. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unban

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).

Nauman335 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel guilty and i accept that i have created more than 20 accounts on Wikipedia English. It is 22 months old to my account and i am know everything about Wikipedia. Please unban my account and i will not create any sock account and nor create any deleted page or anything that will goes against wikipedia ploicies. Its my humble request to you all to unban my account. Thank you

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. You haven't gone six months without further evasion. 2025-02-07 is the absolute soonest WP:SO would apply. Additionally, you'd need a massively more convincing unban request at that time, given your very long history of abuse. Yamla (talk) 13:30, 7 August 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.