User talk:GeezGod

Created this discussion page, Nagen.

Read full instructions

Please read full instructions before commenting on Articles for deletion discussion pages. Your "Too Soon" comment on Paras Kalnawat article deletion discussion page has become confusing. As this term is used in keep favour. Read everyone's comments. And then explain why you feel this article should be deleted or kept. Pri2000 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pri2000, That vote was not confusing and as per wiki norms. Please read - Wikipedia:Too soon GeezGod (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi , could you complain against Pri2000 on WP:ANI as she is trying to influence the result of deletion. 106.214.249.231 (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 106.214.249.231, Please do not make such comments on the talk pages of other editors. This could be considered a violation. You can talk about it on the deletion discussion page. GeezGod (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, sorry bro.106.214.249.231 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pay attention to his messages. He's a blocked user Princepratap1234 who harrasses editors badly. He stalks users through mail, finds out their personal info and harrasses them through IPs. He harrassed me a lot and another user Manali Jain in past. When he crossed the limits to harass me I filed a sockpuppetry case against him and his IPs through the evidence present in my talk page editing history. You can visit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigation/Princepratap1234 [1]. If he continues to harass you thorough different IPs you should just do one thing please open your Special:GlobalPreferences page, open the "Notifications" tab, check "Select options below to be global", then remove all checkmarks from the "Mention" row and click the blue "Save" button at the bottom left. And if he still message and harass you you can request semiprotection of your talk page at WP:ANI. Thankyou Pri2000 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request to admin

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

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

Request reason:

I believe there is a misunderstanding regarding this block. Have you gone over all of the technical details? Or maybe you just surprised to see how a new member can comment on AFD. Since signing up, I've been using the same phone number and device, and even my son hasn't touched it. I'd like the block to be rechecked. If you have any questions, please contact me.

(Additional query: What is the location of the sockpuppet investigation report?)

GeezGod (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per NinjaRobotPirate below. I have overestimated my ability to detect this kind of sockpuppetry after Simpson001 was CU-confirmed. And no, importing Twinkle from vi.wikipedia is not a policy violation; it just added to the image of an experienced user creating a sockpuppet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I'm quite sure this isn't Kingshowman. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I didn't know that importing Twinkle from vi.wikipedia is a violation. GeezGod (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of User:GeezGod/minerva.js

Hi GeezGod, sorry, but I can't restore User:GeezGod/minerva.js myself. It's your javascript and others can not create the page for security reasons. The content was:

mw.loader.load('//vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:P.T.Đ/TwinkleMobile.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); // User:P.T.Đ/TwinkleMobile by vi:User:P.T.Đ

Feel free to re-create it with the original content. The deletion criterion obviously doesn't apply, and never applied. The page was deleted in error. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thank you for your consideration. I'll create it in whenever it's needed. I'm glad to be back! GeezGod (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(back home) I'm sorry for the unnecessary and incorrect block. There had been attempts by Princepratap1234 (talk · contribs) and 110.226.215.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to interfere with the deletion processes, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paras Kalnawat, and I viewed a new account jumping into that situation with excessive suspicion. And, as stated above, there was Simpson001 (talk · contribs), along with many others. You did nothing wrong, you just entered a room full of people who did. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry. No problem at all. It was obvious to misread my viewpoint/contributions because the entire scenario was so confusing. GeezGod (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, GeezGod! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for speculating on the mental health of your opponent, which is a WP:BLP violation and a personal attack. Just because someone is blocked and is block evading, does not grant you license to act as an armchair psychiatrist. Your account is already problematic (both yours and your opponent's) because of the offwiki Facebook component of the dispute. Sorry, but it's too much at this point.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 14:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to write something. And, you blocked me.

I was writing this- "I want to improve railway articles. Thanks everyone. GeezGod (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)". I think we all need some new rules and judgement. No worries. I have a job and salary. Can I read wikipedia from my mobile? Please confirm. GeezGod (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. Thank you. Just checked. You people really need to improve your management skills. You people are too quick to take decision. Good night. GeezGod (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Planning send an email to Jimmy explaining this matter. Will update his response here. GeezGod (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GeezGod, a block does not restrict displaying Wikipedia pages, it only restricts editing them. Anyway, review WP:GAB if you really are interested in contributing to "railways" rather than the contested topic area in question. Thanks again. El_C 15:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work for the railways, and I'm now retired. Long ago, I was an engineer and a member of the arbitration committee's team (Platform team/ I wrote an encyclopaedia about Assamese surname s) Hehe. I am active on Facebook. I provide old books for those guys on wikipedia. They upload it. We had a great time. We used to learn by doing, you know. We have a Facebook group. I can understand why you'd feel that way (to block me). I'm working on a message to send to the founder (I just love him/ He is not rich/ But he is rich). It all comes down to how we make our decisions. My 26-year-old son is a wonderful person. I don't like his decisions. Good bye. GeezGod (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource, they said. That Arunodoi guy is not good. GeezGod (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi GeezGod, after seeing checkusers clear your account, it's clear to me that your competency will be net addition to Wikipedia. I specifically appreciated the distinction between DGP and Special DGP you pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pallab_Bhattacharyya. It seems unfortunate to me that you got caught up in this mess so early on. I request you to go through WP:NPA and put in an appeal showing the understanding. Even though I'm not an admin at all, I feel that an appeal would be considered favorably given the single slip-up and the circumstances. Hemantha (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a checkuser block too. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? 😢😢GeezGod (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I have no business being here, but for the sake of transparency, I'd like to see the SPI case that led to checkuser permissions being used. Remember, the duck test is not grounds for a CU-block. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plutonical, public SPI case pages are not a requirement for checkusering. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I have gone over the checkuser page and realized my mistake. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been blocked solely on the basis of assumptions. I'd like you to do a thorough investigation. Please double-check the technical log. Nothing will be found if an administrator checks everything. GeezGod (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've just blocked another three of your socks. Revoking talk page access to prevent you wasting more of our time. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:41, 19 February 2022 (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.