User talk:Alirana24

June 2025

Hi Alirana24! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Planetary surface and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. The removal of 34,166 bytes is not minor. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68 Apologies — I mistakenly marked the previous edit as "minor" when it involved broader improvements to grammar and clarity. No factual content was changed; only style and readability were improved. Thanks for the review and feedback! Alirana24 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you would think that's the case, unless you're also using an LLM largely unsupervised to rewrite the article, like you're using one to reply here. Please do not do that or anything like that, it does not help us. Remsense 🌈 论 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense Sir, I sincerely apologize. You have my full respect.

I found the article editable and just tried to simplify it for easier understanding. I always respect all my seniors and every human being.

If you think my edits are not helpful, I will stop editing that article. Please guide me on what I should do to improve. I’m always ready to learn and follow your advice.

Thank you very much for your reply and kind suggestion. Alirana24 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense Sir, I want to clarify that I didn’t use any AI or LLM.

At first, I didn’t even know what LLM meant — I searched to understand it. I only used voice typing, Google Translate, and some writing tools to help with speed and language, but all content is from my own understanding.

If I had used AI, my profile would have been perfect from the start — but I kept improving it step by step using Google and YouTube.

Thank you for your guidance and advice. Alirana24 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary in any case was not correct—any edit that cuts out as much of the article as you did is removing information. It was boilerplate, and unhelpful to understand what your edit did. I recommend breaking up your edits into smaller pieces, where you provide specific information why you changed what you did in each edit summary. Remsense 🌈 论 22:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense Sir, you are right, I truly respect your feedback.

I removed what I felt was repeated or excessive.

I want to clarify that I didn’t use AI. As proof, the edit summaries were different because I gave them by voice command — if it were AI, the summaries would likely be the same. The article edit was the same both times, because I wrote it on a separate page and copy-pasted it each time. Only the wording of the summaries changed, not the content or meaning.

I’ll be more careful moving forward, making smaller edits with clearer summaries. Thank you again for your kind guidance. Alirana24 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Economic Contributions of Common Citizens in South Asia

The article Economic Contributions of Common Citizens in South Asia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is written like an essay. It is also unclear what the focus of the article is.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator == Response to Proposed Deletion ==

Thank you for the feedback and for reviewing the article. I understand the concern about tone and focus. The intention of this article is to document the significant yet often overlooked contributions of ordinary citizens — particularly informal workers, small farmers, and micro-entrepreneurs — to the economic development of South Asia.

I've used reliable sources such as the World Bank, ILO, FAO, and UNDP, and I'm now working on improving the tone to align more closely with Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. I would greatly appreciate any specific suggestions you might have to further improve the structure or focus.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

— Alirana24 (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III

Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjö Keep – This essay offers a moral and philosophical reflection on one of the most pressing global concerns of our time: the prevention of a third world war. It is clearly marked as an essay and does not attempt to create or enforce any Wikipedia policy. The content is original, well-structured, and aims to stimulate thought and discussion about global peace, diplomacy, and responsibility. Given the essay namespace allows for individual viewpoints on important topics, this page aligns with Wikipedia’s essay standards. Alirana24 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should really make your case at the deletion page and not here. Sjö (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hello, I noticed that you have recently created an alternative account, Zahid131, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's alternative account policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here? I'd appreciate learning your reasons for creating an additional account. Thank you. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2A49:950E:80BB:4E83 (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2A49:950E:80BB:4E83 Thank you for the message. I want to clarify that I am not the same person as Zahid131, and I have not created or controlled any alternative accounts. We are two separate individuals who had only brief editorial interactions — for example, correcting Urdu phrasing or reviewing a draft.

If there is any similarity in IP, it may be due to regional mobile networks or shared public Wi-Fi infrastructure, which can cause overlaps in dynamic IP addresses. I’ve reviewed the alternative account policy, and I assure you that I’m contributing to Wikipedia independently and in good faith.

Please let me know if I can help clarify further.

— Alirana24 Alirana24 (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using more than one account with the intention of deception.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW Thank you for the message. I would like to respectfully clarify that I have not used multiple accounts with deceptive intent. If there is any confusion due to overlapping IP addresses, it may have occurred because I sometimes edit from public or shared internet connections.

I’ve always tried to contribute constructively, particularly on topics related to global peace and public knowledge. I am more than willing to answer any questions or assist in clarifying this matter.

Best regards,

User:Alirana24 Alirana24 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't clarify further, because everything is already perfectly clear. IP addresses are totally irrelevant: I have no idea what IP address(es) you have used, nor, so far as I know, has anyone else suggested that you use the same IP address as your other account. You are the only person who has brought that up, and it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to guess why. If you wish to return to editing your best chance is to stop telling ridiculous lies that are not going to be believed, and start telling the truth. Any administrator who looks at the editing history of your two accounts will see that they are run by the same person. JBW (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock and second opinion

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).

Alirana24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully request an independent review of this block. I understand the concerns raised by JBW, but I would like to clarify again that I have not intentionally used multiple accounts to deceive or manipulate Wikipedia. If there has been confusion due to shared IP addresses or accidental logins on a shared device, I sincerely apologize, but it was never done in bad faith. I have tried to contribute constructively, especially on educational and peace-related topics. I respectfully ask for a second opinion from another administrator. Thank you for your consideration. Alirana24 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is mincing words. Have you used multiple accounts (and if so, which accounts) or have you not? If you have, let us know which accounts so we can decide whether or not you've previously declared your use of multiple accounts and avoided editing in the same subject area. You've previously outright stated Zahid131 is not your account, though multiple admins find that unlikely, and your unblock request here seems to indicate you have used multiple accounts, just not abusively. For future reviewers, I have not (yet) looked at the technical evidence involved. Yamla (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2025 (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.

@Yamla: Thank you again for your follow-up. I would like to clarify that I am not the person behind the account Zahid131. That account belongs to another individual. I have only ever edited under this account, Alirana24, and I take full responsibility for all my actions.

If there are similarities in editing interests or behavior, they are coincidental or possibly due to shared access points such as public or workplace internet. There was no intention to deceive or misuse multiple accounts.

I respectfully request reconsideration of the block and appreciate your time and fairness. I genuinely want to contribute constructively, and I don’t know what to do if my good faith isn’t recognized. Alirana24 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC) @Yamla: @Yamla: Thank you again for your follow-up. I would like to clarify that I am not the person behind the account Zahid131. That account belongs to another individual. I have only ever edited under this account, Alirana24, and I take full responsibility for all my actions.[reply]

If there are similarities in editing interests or behavior, they are coincidental or possibly due to shared access points such as public or workplace internet. There was no intention to deceive or misuse multiple accounts.

I respectfully request reconsideration of the block and appreciate your time and fairness. Alirana24 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC) Alirana24[reply]

To any administrator reviewing this unblock request: There is plenty of proof of sockpuppetry, which of course you can review, but you may find it saves time to start by looking at this and this. JBW (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the data

The link doesn't show any thing Alirana24 (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thank you again for your follow-up. I would like to clarify that I am not the person behind the account Zahid131. That account belongs to another individual. I have only ever edited under this account, Alirana24, and I take full responsibility for all my actions.

If there are similarities in editing interests or behavior, they are coincidental or possibly due to shared access points such as public or workplace internet. There was no intention to deceive or misuse multiple accounts.

I respectfully request reconsideration of the block and appreciate your time and fairness. Alirana24 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Prevention of World War III

The article Prevention of World War III has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Essay type of content, big parts of unsourced, original research and user who created it is blocked for sock-puppetry

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DatBot

Yes, you can delete the message of peace. My account is blocked, so I can’t protect my views or improve the article anymore.

I came to Wikipedia to promote peace in the world, reduce hate, and support the common man. I did what I could, according to my ability.

I was not here to earn anything—only to help make the world a peaceful place. But maybe that hope will not be fulfilled. Alirana24 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]