User talk:Dineshsp

Sock puppet investigation

You are involved in a sock puppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dineshsp.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dineshsp (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Dineshsp (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Hi, how to do cleanup of this article, as this was not a part of any promotion. The creation of Czechmate2018 id was a big mistake and I have made changes after that... please help me[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dineshsp. 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. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi there, which part of content of this article seems to look like promotion or self branding. All users are not that much experts like professional editors may be, individual users do make mistake or do silly things, so instead of helping me or make me understand the situation, all other expert contributor simply make decide to remove or block this article. What is there so objectionable in this article, I am trying to do research and trying to put as many external references also to make to verify facts and figures if any. So, I am not able to understand one simple thing, what should I do as I am not that much well verse with all this technicality of Wikipedia and its expert contributors or watch members, Please advise what to do and how to doDineshsp (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address your violations of WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize if it is sounding rash or hard for making request for unblocking it. I was not knowing this violations of WP:SOCK, pratikshajadhav is my friend so I used her account details as I was not able to recreate the article and on that account the move option was also not available for moving the draft to the main article. So, I moved from this account where the move option was available. I am still not able to understand the complexity of all this matter. My wish is very simple I admire this filmmaker and archivist only for his work and achievements in his field and for its country without making any profit for all this his noble work. Please guide me how to resolve this matter in a most simple and legal way. I am not that much expert in all this technical terms and regulations. My simple wish is that I just wanted to edit this article because recently I read in many newspaper about his work and dedication towards saving Indian cinematic heritage of this country where no one bother to save its heritage. Please advise and guide. Thank You... Dinesh Dineshsp (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but 3 editors working on the same page is not acceptable. You might or might not find WP:PAID to your situation.

WP:sockpuppetry is a serious matter. My advice would be to list all other accounts you have edited under.
Abstain from editing for six months.
After six months request the WP:standard offer. At that time you will need to address the possible PAID editing and any other issues I might not be aware of. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Firstly, I am very new with Wikipedia. I was not aware that if I create username: Czechmate2018 it will be considered as Self Branding or Promotional. After being pinpointed by concern persons of Wikipedia that you can't use the username "Czechmate2018", I have immediately changed the username to 'Shivendrasinghdungarpur'. But I realized that this username is also violating the username guidelines of Wikipedia, then I changed this username to my current username 'Dineshsp'. By the time I could cleanup anything, I got a message from Wikipedia that the article 'Shivendra Singh Dungarpur' meeting the criteria for speedy deletion. I was panic with this speedy deletion message and instead solving this matter as per the guidelines of Wikipedia, I got nervous about the situation and created an another username 'Atishdongde' for recreating the same article, but I was not able to understand the sandbox process. So, I created a third username 'Pratikshajadhav' with the same IP and drafted the draft for 'Shivendra Singh Dungarpur' article and with approximately 24 external reference in support facts and figures for the same article. I wanted move the draft but I couldn't found the Move option in 'Pratikshajadhav' username, so I logged into 'Dineshsp' username and was checking for the move option which I found. As, I founded the Move option in 'Dineshsp' username I moved 'Shivendra Singh Dungarpur' draft of 'Pratikshajadhav' username to the main space. This was again a violation of 'sockpuppetry' as per the guidelines of Wikipedia. I apologize for my unintended mistake and I accept that I should be barred for abstaining from editing for six months. But, I request from bottom of my heart to reinstated the article 'Shivendra Singh Dungarpur' to it's last version before I started editing i.e. before February 19th, 2018, so that researchers and readers who want to collect the information about 'Shivendra Singh Dungapur' and his noble works of saving the cinematic heritage of Indian Cinema without making any profit or commercial gain will find difficult and inconvenience while collection the information on Wikipedia. As, the Wikipedia is biggest source for collecting information about any person or subject, it is my humble request and pledge with folded hands to reinstate the 'Shivendra Singh Dungarpur' article. Thank you, Dineshsp Dineshsp (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It seems your only interest on Wikipedia is to continue working on topics where you have a conflict of interest and where your previous efforts have been deleted repeatedly for being blatantly promotional. Under these circumstances unblocking you would not improve the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I didn't requested to unblock me, my request was to reinstate the 'Shivendra Singh Dungarpur' article to it's last version before I started editing i.e. before February 19th, 2018. Hope this will be not a issue for "Conflict of Interest". Thank you, DineshspDineshsp (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not appropriate use of the unblock template. Go away. Every time you edit your reset the clock on the six month hiatus. In six months we might consider the standard offer. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2018 (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.

Shivendra Singh Dungarpur

@Jenks24: Hello, this user has requested restoration of the prodded version of Special:Undelete/Shivendra_Singh_Dungarpur, before it was turned into a G11 nightmare. Would that be possible? Thanks, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]