User talk:MehmoodS

You are not allowed to use large quotations in "quote=" parameter. It should not exceed more than 25 words in general. If you have questions reply here, not on my talk page. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then the quotes can be shortened. You could have just notified but still needs to be verified if what you suggested is accurate. There was no need to revert. MehmoodS (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a clear need to revert. You are removing "Maratha victory" despite being warned not to remove it. It is staying there for years and you can't remove it without gaining consensus first. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that states that something that has been there for years cannot be corrected. The information earlier had false quotes and I added the correct one which you reverted. Also its up to you and the previous user to reach concensus as there is discussion already in place that you haven't even taken consideration.MehmoodS (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You were not correcting anything but only modifying according what you wanted to by using a misleading edit summary. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * surprised that you are here as part of the discussion now. Interesting. It was clearly a correction as the quotes you added were false quotes which were part of the war during initial state and not what the end result was in 1782. Therefore, the quotes you used were definitely misleading. MehmoodS (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are forgetting I left a message here about 8 hours ago. A source already existed on infobox which says "This period also coincided with the First Anglo-Maratha War, which was settled only in 1782 with a Maratha victory over the British and their local allies.". How you could "correct" anything by misrepresenting the source? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to take such source such as that of Barbara West through WP:RSN to get opinion about its reliability because its not as Barbara A. West holds a Ph.D. in social anthropology from the University of Rochester in New York. She is not an academicians historian. I didn't even look at her citation earlier due to above reason as it wasn't worthy to look at as compared to other citations by actual historians such as M.S. Naravane, Richard Ernest Dupuy, Gay M. Hammerman, Grace P. Hayes, James C. Bradford. And the quotes by these historians were added as correction which were misrepresented earlier.MehmoodS (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Whats the problem?
What is the problem in adding “Chhatrapati” to Shivaji Maharaj? How is this disruptive? Kindly explain! Avinash.umb (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * answered on your talk page. MehmoodS (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Why you are continuously removing Shivaji Maharaj's name as one liner? Ankitudawant (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * answered on your talk page.MehmoodS (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

×== Edit ==

We were editing at the same time which I kinda messed up your edit without knowing. Wikipedia is bugging for me, I cannot post a correct edit for some reason. S.G ReDark (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please continue with your edits. I will review it later if any format or alignment needs fixed. MehmoodS (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks:) S.G ReDark (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Well finished ..... kinda for some reason I can't edit properly which causes my edits to be a mess. Can you fix the rest since I can't for some reason S.G ReDark (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Publication subsection looks good. Is there any section you need help with? Overall, well written. MehmoodS (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks that means a lot. Well I wanted to do the same above with the exhibitions. Example and so on (hopefully you understand what I mean). S.G ReDark (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Exhibition 1
 * Exhibition 2
 * yes please continue. You can also use your own sandbox to experiment. MehmoodS (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, how does it work? S.G ReDark (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I just started editing Wikipedia so I don't know much S.G ReDark (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This link will provide you information and instruction on sandbox. Sandbox MehmoodS (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I'll check it. Also I made a new update check it if you want :) S.G ReDark (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Made minor fix but looks good otherwise.MehmoodS (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Please review my request. MehmoodS (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * again or can anyone else who can review?, , , , , , , anyone available? I know this isn't the orthodox way to ping admins but its been two days without any response. MehmoodS (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say it, but I took a look at the CU data here + the logs for HaughtonBrit, and I'd give a stronger connection than Drmies did - I'd say the CU data makes this account fairly likely to past accounts. CUs can email me for the specific quirk I'm looking at. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for looking into my request. Like I mentioned in my unblock request, this is my one and only account. I have not used any other account simultaneously. Please look at my contribution history. My work speaks of me as a faithful editor who has worked everyday to stop disruption and vandalism. Please I request you to unblock me. Please do consider. MehmoodS (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , vandalism is happening on pages that I prevented them from such as on Battle of Umberkhind, Battle of Kolhapur, Baji Prabhu Deshpande, where IPs and new accounts are pushing honorifics into these pages. There is no one checking these pages and editors like Akshaypatill who are aware of this, are not taking any actions against such disruptions or warning editors of MOS:HON and then there are other pending change reviewers who have witnessed it, but just turn the blind eye. Please look at my contribution where I constantly warned and protected pages from such disruptions. Please do consider of unblocking me so that I can continue to improve encyclopedia and prevent its articles from being disrupted. MehmoodS (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * MehmoodS, with two admins looking at the CU data, I don't think you can come back easily from this (I also note your use of simultaneously in "not used any other account simultaneously"). My suggestion is that you fess up on all accounts you have ever used, simultaneously or not, declare which account you will continue to use going forward (that becomes your primary account), then find something else to do for a minimum of six months and see if you can convince someone to unblock you. I suggest you read WP:SOCKBLOCK carefully. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * editors with two or more accounts simultaneously, is to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt. A great example would be Suthasianhistorian8 who had about 7-8 accounts that he used simultaneously. I have followed sockpuppet policy and that is why only used one account. Since I have had this account, I haven't had any other account that I used simultaneously with this account and I don't know what CU data is of concern here. This is my one and only account that I have used in last 9 months and this the only account that I have been using and will continue with moving forward and this is my only primary account. When you say that find something else to do for 6 months, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean to step away for six months from Wikipedia and then re-request to unblock? But can't admins continue to investigate as I have digressed enough to look at my contribution and tell me if I have in any way caused any nuisance or disruption on Wikipedia. I just request to have my account unblocked. MehmoodS (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I've revoked TPA; we really don't have to listen to this sophistry.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * why block me from editing my own talk page. This is a great example of admins like you who like to use faithful editors like us as collateral damage and when we have to say something, you block us from editing our own talk page to suppress our voice. Its a shame! Please take note and others. 50.248.64.249 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I have reenabled talk page access for this user to make an unblock request here. Note that they did evade their block with, but only to contest their block. Whether or not that precludes them from making a request under WP:SO is up to the reviewing admin. Checkuser data shows no other evidence of evasion. -- Yamla (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if this is out of line, but this user has been editing logged out not only from this IP 50.248.64.249 but also consistently from two different ranges (close to a hundred or so edits since his block I believe, the last few as recent as January 19 of this year), not only that but also from a FedEx IP similar to the one listed on the Haughton Brit SPI page which he used to edit just one day after his July 5 block, and also from 3 different airports. Kindly advise me an appropriate course of action on how to inform admins of his continued sock puppetry since July 5 or whether I should even proceed with it at all. I understand that I have a problematic history myself and I don't want admins to think that I am reverting to past behaviour - I have committed to admins that I will stay away from India + religion topics for a long time and I stand by that, however this user's extensive use of deception, block evasion and using unsavory methods to frustrate other users, particularly myself,  and your comment that CheckUser data shows no evidence of block evasion has impelled to write this to.  There is iron clad evidence that proves he most certainly has been evading his block in a pretty egregious manner. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have ironclad evidence, WP:SPI is the way to go. Note that checkusers can't tie users to specific IP addresses, though. I will note that I saw no evidence of block evasion, though this does not necessarily preclude your ironclad evidence. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , he was using IP addresses to evade the block. If WP:SPI can't tie users to IPs what will be achieved by it? Just curious..Akshaypatill (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These two users, particularly Suthasianhistorian8 was indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts and just recently his request was approved to be able to edit again. He and Akshaypatill are two users who have had issues with me regarding edits and now with my request for appeal, it has bothered them as they do not want my request to be approved. Please if you have any question regarding anything about my appeal, please do let me know. I have put everything on the table and there is nothing to hide.MehmoodS (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against you. I may have interacted with you maybe once or twice max and that too was peaceful. You had denied owning this account earlier and now accepting it. I am just helping admins to take a informed decision. Akshaypatill (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please let me know how long the request takes for coming down with a decision. Also please let me know if you have any questions for me or if there is something you think I missed to mention or admit or need clarification, please do ask. I am literally an open book. Won't hide anything and will answer all questions truthfully.MehmoodS (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit for more details. The following is a modified version of what I stated at SPI. Based on the comparison diffs presented by in the "Recent..." section, particularly those added earlier in the process as I haven't looked at every single one, the behavioral evidence that the IPs and MehmoodS are the same person is sufficiently persuasive that in the normal course of events, the IPs would be blocked for block evasion. In addition, MehmoodS has demonstrated by their own admitted use of IPs in the past that they edit from Pittsburgh, and the IPv6s noted in the diffs geolocate to Pittsburgh. After my comments,  responded in part: "CU isn't a silver bullet. If the consensus is that behavioural evidence indicates block evasion, we obviously should not lift the block." (for my complete comments and Yamla's full response see the report). Because the purpose of the SPI was not to block any of the IPs (their edits are not recent enough to warrant blocking), I bring this here as a better venue to discuss what to do and will close the SPI in a moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest the pretty strong consensus is that (comparatively recent) block evasion has indeed happened and that the unblock request should therefore be declined. That is, I believe this is the position of everyone involved in this review. If people think differently, please speak up. --Yamla (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly support the block in place: As mentioned thoroughly prior, there is no way that the 199 FedEx IP range as well as the 2600:1016 IPs' recent edits from July to January while being inactive in those areas prior to the July 5 block is coincidental. The latter also matching up precisely with the 50* IP's geolocation and behavioral evidence. Not to mention that MehmoodS also neglected to mention his connection to the WorldWikiAuthorOriginal account, which used to heavily edit the page Battle of Saragarhi, a battle which was led by a British figure, Colonel Haughton, hence the succeeding sock account being named HaughtonBrit, as well as the aggrandizing of British forces in Anglo-Afghan and Anglo-Maratha conflicts, a trait shared by all accounts. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I am literally an open book. Won't hide anything and will answer all questions truthfully. MehmoodS, do you have a response to all this?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is true that I made some edits while my account MehmoodS remained block but during that time I understood block evasion as someone whose account is blocked and then creates another account to disguise himself like I did when HaughtonBrit account was blocked and I created MehmoodS account right after. I was under the impression that once your account is blocked then you are literally not a member anymore but become a non-Wikipedia member who doesn't have an account and can edit pages but with IPs showing. After reading some explanation above, I realized that I misunderstood, made blunder and I really really apologize for it. Please forgive me. I had no intention to cause any disruption. Truly, deeply apologize. Please tell me what you suggest? Do you want me to reapply after certain period because of this mistake I made? Please do tell me.MehmoodS (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have lied too many times. I can't see a route for you to ever be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please hear me out. I agree with you but that is all in the past and I admitted to everything. I really need this please and would take any strong suggestions or recommendations you can provide to prove myself as I know it's hard to believe someone who lied. That is why I gave all detail about my lies in my appeal. I also realized now I should have added about editing while blocked and I would definitely include in my appeal as well. You asked and I answered truthfully and admitted. I am willing to take any suggestions. Please give me one last final opportunity.MehmoodS (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On January 27, Suthasianhistorian8 posted here about your logged out editing. After that, they filed a report at SPI with details, which you could easily follow (and probably did). Yet, you said nothing. You never said, "oh, I didn't know that logged out editing is block evasion", even though it's absolutely obvious that it is. Instead, you waited until now to admit to a fairly large amount of logged out editing and expect us to believe that you didn't know it was block evasion because it wasn't from a named account. And the history of your case at SPI indicates that you have been accused of logged out editing before, and you knew that as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw Suthasianhistorian8 message on my talk page but usually we get message that a SPI case has been submitted about you (something around that line) so that is why I was waiting for it and just saw it today in detail through the link you provided. I am being brutually honest. If I would have seen it or if some admin like you would have questioned, I would have given you the answer rightaway truthfully. I didn't know such discussion was going on in different platform. I would have saved everyone's time. Plus I have been traveling right now and not able to give update or keep any watch accordingly due to lack of access. Its also hard to keep track where the matter was last left off. That is why after a while I pinged Yamla to get an update on my appeal. About getting warnings about editing while logged out, yes, but that was when I had an account and that is why it was misunderstanding on my part because now as my account is blocked, therefore makes me just a random external user. And I realized that this too is block evasion. Bbb23, like I said earlier, I am literally an open book, you will get all answers truthfully. By hiding or not admitting, I know I am causing the issues for myself and my blocked account and I don't want to plus feel ashamed for my lies in the past. I am giving it all out to you about any question you have. I really really need one last final opportunity. Please hear me.MehmoodS (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the above comment by MehmoodS is once again almost certainly indicative of further lies. He writes "but usually we get message that a SPI case has been submitted about you (something around that line) so that is why I was waiting for it and just saw it today in detail through the link you provided. I am being brutually honest...... I didn't know such discussion was going on in different platform. I would have saved everyone's time.". However, he has filed at least 5 SPIs not too far back and the users he filed them against did not receive any message on their talk pages that a sock puppet investigation was opened up about them. (He filed 3 SPIs as HaughtonBrit and 2 as MehmoodS, one against me on June 11, 2022 and against another user in 2021, ). Not only that but when Aman Kumar Goel filed a SPI against him, MehmoodS did not receive any message on his talk page. In fact, MehmoodS knew right away on June 10, 2022 that a SPI was filed against himself, and just one day later, he filed one against me. To further add, this user has been watching me like a hawk throughout the duration of my time here on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no way he did not immediately know of the SPI on Jan 28 when I filed it. In fact, he even asked Akshaypatil to submit his concerns to SPI platform. That diff was made 14 hours after I filed a SPI. Also, he mentioned he was travelling, this may be why CU was unable to find any technical evidence of block evasion. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , when I had an active account over a while ago, I filed various SPI reports but with such gap you don't remember much of the process. And even if some user might have said that he or she didn't get a SPI report, then it's my fault for not posting the message on their talk page. That is the process otherwise if i can remember correctly. Even if I get to be able to edit again as an active user, I will have to rehash again about different platforms and processes especially since there has been a long gap. We are all humans. Just making you aware as it seems Suthasianhistorian8 is trying to twist my words. Bbb23 you know the history between me and him as you were involved in issues between me and him while back. I have grown out of it. Importantly, I have been traveling like I mentioned before, and don't have time enough or access enough to get all detail about this matter and makes it hard to keep track of where the matter left off especially when there is no update on talk page.MehmoodS (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * pinging Yamla as well. Please suggest.MehmoodS (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is clearly the end of the line at this point. The soonest we'll consider lifting your block is 2023-07-30, and only if you (you personally) make zero edits between now and then. I very, very, very strongly advise you to stop immediately. Step away entirely from en.wikipedia for at least six months. Immediately. Frankly, I believe nobody will unblock you in six months unless you can somehow convince the administrator that you'll take a totally different approach with regard to honesty. However, that's between you and them. --Yamla (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Truly thankful to you for the much needed advise and suggestion. I will follow it to the core. Thank you.MehmoodS (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop. I told you once, it's time to step away from en.wikipedia. Now is not the time to keep on commenting here. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * my apologies. I got message on my talk page so felt like I needed to give clarification. I am sorry. I am leaving now. MehmoodS (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)