User talk:Papyrus cyrus

February 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Vinegarymass911. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to HBM Iqbal seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Papyrus cyrus! 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 experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

04:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not edit war[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at HBM Iqbal. 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 block. Thank you.

The most effective way to approach a large change is to break it into small pieces and discuss them one at a time until consensus is reached, then move on to the next change. For example, if you want to add date and place of birth, cite on the talk page the source you want to use to support them. When proposing changes, be sure to disclose your conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not me[edit]

I did not revert this time or the last time, add sources and the content should just be facts. Please read the rules of wikipedia and also your edits got a speedy deletion request on the article. Examples of not being neutral are phrases like, "Multi-Dimensional Corporate personality", " Multi-Dimensional Corporate Body" and there is too much information about his company. Best of luck.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Papyrus cyrus! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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/Papyrus cyrus, 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.

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papyrus cyrus. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is harrasment[edit]

Hi Berean Hunter and Worldbruce just because you guys run the show doesn't mean you will keep on spreading false claims and misrepresenting HBM Iqbal. Using false claims and giving wrong information about HBM Iqbal doesn't fall against wikipedia community standard. However, you guys can misuse this platform by your own set of guidelines. This page is HBM Iqbal is deframing the person. Using his content without his own consent is not permitted by law and shall, therefore, possess the right to sue. Papyrus cyrus (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

{

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Berean, I am a new user to the community. I've been blocked by you for sockpuppetry. First things first. I agree that I did sockpuppetry once because I had no other option than this. HBM Iqbal is related to me and I can guarantee you that the article that I am fighting is worth fighting for. If you look into this wiki article HBM Iqbal you will also admit that is has been a biased article from the scratch. Let me explain to you in 5 points: 1. The Worldbruce, Vinegarymass911 and Edwardx are not allowing me to put authentic information like birthday, educational information. Unless they have a personal interest to defame this person, I don't find any logical reason for accepting the right edits. 2. Instead of putting detailed information about HBM Iqbal they are forcing to put a 1 liner unexplained info in the career section. 3. The citations are wrongly misplaced. For example, "He is the chairman of Premier Bank Limited" has been cited with this "Premier Bank sues nine officials for fund fraud". The Daily Star. 21 January 2013. Retrieved 8 December 2016. He is the vice-president of Dhaka city Awami league has been cited with this "Rising high the audacity". The Daily Star. 25 August 2010. Retrieved 8 December 2016. 4. Instead of giving other paragraphs like personal life or awards and recognition, these editors have decided to keep Controversy as a neutral article? Unless this is a piece of joke. The controversy is more detailed than his career where irrelevant like this is present "His 16 year old nephew crashed his car in Gulshan, Dhaka in 2016. He was under the influence of alcohol, four people were injured in the accident. The boy was not charged but taken to safety by Bangladesh police.". This has nothing to do with the users personal life or his Wikipedia career. The user is no way responsible for this incident. 5. There are deadlinks as citations and references to this article. Reference no (4) :"Harassing the innocents and saving the criminal". The Daily Star. 20 October 2015. Retrieved 8 December 2016. and (5). "SC upholds conviction of HBM Iqbal's family". The Financial Express. Dhaka. Retrieved 8 December 2016. Unless anyone has any direct rivalry with this person, I do not find any possible reason to present HBM Iqbal in an inappropriate way to wiki users. HBM Iqbal deserves a better article, and that is why I've kept on updating with the proper one. Please help me to get into a proper one. Papyrus cyrus (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:33, 2 March 2019 (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.

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Papyrus cyrus. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page HBM Iqbal, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"HBM Iqbal is related to me".
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legal?[edit]

Papyrus cyrus, What does "Using his content without his own consent is not permitted by law and shall, therefore, possess the right to sue" mean? 1 Please clarify.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Dear Admin, I admit to having misused the guideline of Wikipedia community. I admit myself as guilty and therefore would like to request an unblock from editing. I will not do any more sock puppet. And work on a better wikipedia community. Papyrus cyrus (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin, I admit to having misused the guideline of Wikipedia community. I admit myself as guilty and therefore would like to request an unblock from editing. I will not do any more sock puppet. And work on a better wikipedia community. Papyrus cyrus (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Your account wasn't blocked directly. You signed into one of your sock puppets and triggered an autoblock. I've lifted the autoblock, so you should be able to edit now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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/Papyrus cyrus, 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.

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]