User talk:Aden Singh 45

welcome
Hello Aden Singh 45, welcome to Wikipedia. I have approved your request for an account from the account request interface, even though you were previously blocked, per our assume good faith guideline. It seems to me that your original block was due to edits you made to overcome difficulties with our external link verification interface for anonymous users, which an administrator interpreted as disruptive, and subsequently for being unable to use a block appeal template. However I also recognize that your access was further restricted when you personally attacked editors responding to you, which is forbidden. ( courtesy pings)

Please take note of the following:
 * When your account is four days old and you have made at least ten edits, you will no longer be required to complete a CAPTCHA to add external links. In the meantime I suggest you refrain from trying to add links, I'm quite certain no improvements have been made to that interface since you were blocked, and you will have the same difficulties.
 * Wikipedia takes accessibility seriously, or at least I would like that to be true. If you encounter problems editing with your screen reader which are due to the way an article is coded, you can ask for help on the article's talk page. If you run into other probems which you're certain are due to Wikipedia's implementation of accessibility features, please do not hesitate to report your issue at the village pump for technical issues.
 * You are expected to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for editing, including the civility policy (also see no personal attacks) and policy on information concerning living persons. Wikipedia is not to be used for biased edits nor for advocacy, political or otherwise. All editors are expected to collaborate and to treat all others with dignity and respect; those who do not will be blocked from editing, and you will not be approved for another account if this one is blocked. If you have a disagreement over content with other editors, please try to discuss on the article's talk page, seek dispute resolution, or as a last resort you can report your issue to the administrators' noticeboard.

And finally:
 * If you attempt to ban editors from your talk page based on their nationality again (or for any other reason), as you did here, you will be immediately blocked. This is the only warning you will receive.

If you require any other assistance to get started, please leave a note here, or ask at the help desk. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC) You'll be happy to know my days of attacking Americans are behind me, not just because of Wikipedia, but because of a recent real life experience I had. I don't want to go into it too deeply, but what happened to me in January really showed me that Americans are no better or worse than anybody else. I have no hard feelings towards any of the users anymore. I am grateful for this second chance, I truely am. I plan on doing my best to source my edits as best I can. I'm wondering if going forward I can turn to you or Graham87 for help, especially Graham since him and I use the same screen-reader. I do tend to get a little testy during disputes, but I shall do my level best to keep my testiness to a minimum. Thank you for helping me with my account and for the second chance. Aden Singh 45 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

To ensure clarity for, and others, the discussino at Talk:Dua Lipa that I started about the name Dua is not an issue of BLP as I am not disputing that she is of Albanian descent, rather I am disputing the claim at Dua Lipa that claims that her name is Albanian, as I could not find a source of that other than Lipa's own words. Another user and myself have found sources that state that the given name Dua is of Arabic origin and means prayer. So just to be clear, as I'm a bit scared that you guys will go after me for it or that it may be misinterpreted as me talking about nationality or another BLP issue, I'm arguing about the name itself because I can't find independent sources that verify what is claimed in the article. It may also come from me not knowing how reliable interviews are in terms of sources on some issues vs. others. Would she be an expert of the etymology of her name just because it's her name? Is the statement that her name is Albanian acurate and sourced? That's what I'm doing there. Aden Singh 45 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not encourage this highly problematic user to continue editing here. This is just the latest in their series of false identities, as discussed in that thread I linked above, of which I also have off-wiki experience. I'll say more in an email. I have duly blocked this account for block evasion. Graham 87 06:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the double ping. Graham 87 07:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's probably also worth pinging Nil Einne, who participated in the village pump thread. Graham 87 13:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, to make things clear, it's worth noting that this user was recently 199.101.61.254. Graham 87 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was confused who this was until I checked out the VPP thread. Have to agree with Graham87 that I'm not sure we should be encouraging this editor to continue editing at this time. Given the problems they face from their use of a screen reader not helped by the fact the WMF still hasn't done anything by the CAPTCHA problem, plenty of people especially Graham87 have generally done their best to help. But somehow it always ends up going pear shape. IMO if the editor does want to return, we should at a minimum require what we often require from an editor with a prolific sock history i.e. disclosing any previous accounts they remember. It doesn't have to be public. Their IP editing history well I think a lot of it is obvious when they disclose previous accounts, and although their IPs have been fairly sticky, it's still likely to be very difficult for them to disclose them all. So we can ignore that. But going forward, the editor really needs to restrict themselves to their one account, with no IP editing. If they are having trouble logging in due to CAPTCHA's or something, they probably should mention their account name in edit summaries. From my read of the VPP and memory, last time they were around they were disclaiming responsibility for anything prior to June 2018 despite the obvious great similarity. I said "at a minimum" since IMO even with an accounting of their account history and an agreement to restrict themselves to one account and no IP, I'm not sure they should be be allowed back straight away. A good way to demonstrate that you should be given another chance is the WP:STANDARDOFFER which may be a better start for a return to editing. This means no editing from any account or IP for at least 6 months, then ask for an unblock of their account.  Also, while no one is required to reveal any private about themselves and I'm sure plenty of people make up stuff for privacy, their tendency to say different often contradictory things hasn't really helped give confidence about them. IIRC sometimes it has been relevant to whatever it was they were saying. To give on example, I was reminded when checking out that VPP thread that the editor claimed they would be away from Canada until late May or early June 2019. The also said that on their talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:199.101.61.34&diff=889911308&oldid=889838674]. Yet it seems clear this is the same editor Special:Contributions/199.101.62.21. It's possible their plans changed or they had access to their Canadian IP from their trip, but frankly it seems more likely this was something they made up probably in part to try an escape attention. While not a formal condition, if the editor is continually making up stuff, I suggest the editor stop doing that going forward.  As said, they aren't required to reveal anything about themselves, but when they keep saying different contradictory things, well at a minimum it gets confusing.  I'd also note that the Dua Lipa stuff isn't exactly a good example for someone who's been here for so long. As far as I can tell, what they were suggesting was basically WP:original research. They were citing generic naming sites for the name of a specific person. I can't remember that well, but my memory is they've had similar problems with OR before.  Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)