User talk:Harsh Pinjani India

June 2017

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. 84.250.0.210 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot run amok?

Your account seems to be making high-speed reverts with no explanation, sometimes reverting good edits. If this is a bot please shut it off until it can be fixed! Funcrunch (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please slow down. You have already been asked to do this, and since you removed that post from your user talk page you have presumably seen it. For instance, what is the reason for edits such as this, which restored graffiti that had been deleted by an IP, or this which restored a factual error which had been corrected by an IP? It seems as if a large proportion of your reverts are not constructive, and since your account is quite new it's essential that you slow down and learn a bit more about Wikipedia policy - if you continue in this way it is possible that you will run into some kind of editing sanctions, simply because your edits create a lot of work for other editors. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 18:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be of greater benefit to Wikipedia if you would actually read the article you are reverting and try to improve it, rather than restoring bad grammar in a revert. Dbfirs 20:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You are mass reverting random IP edits for no reason. IP's are allowed to edit Wikipedia. Most of the edits you reverted looked good and I didn't find obvious problems in a single of those I examined. Since you reverted many per minute, I don't believe you spotted problems either so I'm going to revert all your article edits. If you believe an edit is bad after reviewing it then you may consider reverting it with an edit summary explaining why. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 sock puppet, 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.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Unblocked

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).

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

Request reason:

I know I did something a bit wrong but from this account I only undid an edits which was showing vandalise but I was not aware and I did multiple edits. I feel I did wrong. I hereby confirm that from now I'll not give a chance to anyone & I'll not do any distructive edits. Please, Let me know what should I do to get Unblocked.
Thanks in Advance.
Now what should I do to get unblocked? Wikipedia:Talk_page_stalker PrimeHunter Anna Frodesiak User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi Harsh_Pinjani_India 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Apply at your primary account. Sockpuppets are almost never unblocked. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:10, 30 June 2017 (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.

(talk page watcher) @Harsh Pinjani India: Just FYI, but your block is for operating multiple acounts in order to evade scrutiny. The multiple edits are not relevant (except in how they drew the blocking administrator's attention to you in the first place!). You should probably be addressing the reasons your primary account got blocked in the first place. Good luck. — fortunavelut luna 09:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Harsh Pinjani India: I concur with the preceding comment about your multiple edits not being relevant with respect to the reasons for your block. However, they are highly relevant regarding your disruptive behavior on numerous articles. So when your block expires, please don't think that you now have carte blanche to resume your previous behavior. Your zeal to combat vandalism is admirable, but please read and understand the core principle about consensus on Wikipedia and follow the procedures about dispute resolution in case of a content dispute with other editors, or your zeal may be interpreted as vandalism on your part. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Mathglot, this block is indefinite. This user came here to do SEO spamming, then he edit warred and socked. It is very unlikely he will ever be unblocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]