User talk:Praveen77777

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Praveen77777! 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:

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! Senator2029 “Talk” 09:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Thiruvananthapuram. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only made edits to the page Thiruvananthapuram in order to restore the original version without vandalism. The city type is a 'Metropolis' in reality, but is being continuously edited into 'City' Praveen77777 (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2020 (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).

Praveen77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I edited the Wikipedia page 'Thiruvananthapuram' city type as 'Metropolis' to prevent vandalism which was being done by editing it into just 'city'. Thiruvananthapuram is the capital of the Indian state of Kerala and is the most populous city of the state, which houses about a million residents. 'Metropolis' is the apt city type, and that's all I tried to add. Now I'm blocked for doing that.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for your edits, but for sockpuppetry. You will need to address this in any future unblock request. Therefore I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:48, 10 November 2020 (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.

I do not possess any other Wikipedia accounts/have other IP addresses/asked any family or friends to make changes as I wish. I just happened to see this particular information being edited into a wrong version repeatedly, and hence I edited it to the original version 'Metropolis' repeatedly. This has apparently resulted in vandalism of the page, but the fact being that I only edited it into a more correct version. That Wikipedia page still displays the wrong information. Please revoke my ban, as I've not violated any rules set by Wikipedia. Praveen77777 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2020 (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).

Praveen77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear admin, I don't have any other Wikipedia accounts/have other IP addresses/asked any family or friends to make changes as I wish. But I was informed that I'm blocked for sockpuppetry. I just happened to see this particular information being edited into a wrong version repeatedly on wikipedia, and hence I edited it to the original version 'Metropolis' repeatedly. This has apparently resulted in vandalism of the page, but the fact is that I only edited it into a correct version. And now, the Wikipedia page still displays the wrong information. Please revoke my ban, as I've not violated any rules of Wikipedia Praveen77777 (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that there is technical evidence to support it, so a simple denial is insufficient, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. If you are not a sockpuppet, you will need to provide a plausible explanation as to why technical evidence would indicate otherwise. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2020 (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.

Could you please clarify what kind of technical evidence is held against me? This is very unfair to me because I haven't engaged in any such activity and how can I prove that I have not done something. I only have been using Wikipedia from this account for quite a long time now. I've never been blocked before and I've only contributed productive inputs in all my edits. It is very unfair that I'm being blocked on accusation of sockpuppeteiring. I'm positive that there cannot be any evidence available for something I haven't been a part of. Praveen77777 (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2020 (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).

Praveen77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The user Arjayay who blocked me has been continuously propogating wrong information on the Wikipedia page Thiruvananthapuram. When I've been trying to change it into the correct version as provided by government websites, this person reverts them and now has blocked me citing Sockpupptery. Could you please clarify what kind of technical evidence is held against me? This is very unfair to me because I haven't engaged in any such activity and how can I prove that I have not done something. I only have been using Wikipedia from this account for quite a long time now. I've never been blocked before and I've only contributed productive inputs in all my edits. It is very unfair that I'm being blocked on accusation of sockpuppeteiring. I'm positive that there cannot be any evidence available for something I haven't been a part of. And it is sad thta users like Arjayay are free to keep spreading misinformation on wikipedia. Please give me an opportunity and I can prove it.

Decline reason:

I'm willing to accept that you're telling the truth about not using multiple accounts. However, something is obviously going on at that article. The only explanation that I can think of is that you recruited friends to help you edit war. So, give us some other explanation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2020 (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.

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "Add topic" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2020 (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).

Praveen77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The user Arjayay who blocked me has been continuously propogating wrong information on the Wikipedia page Thiruvananthapuram. When I've been trying to change it into the correct version as provided by government websites, this person reverts them and now has blocked me citing Sockpupptery. Could you please clarify what kind of technical evidence is held against me? This is very unfair to me because I haven't engaged in any such activity and how can I prove that I have not done something. I only have been using Wikipedia from this account for quite a long time now. I've never been blocked before and I've only contributed productive inputs in all my edits. It is very unfair that I'm being blocked on accusation of sockpuppeteiring. I'm positive that there cannot be any evidence available for something I haven't been a part of. And it is sad thta users like Arjayay are free to keep spreading misinformation on wikipedia. Please give me an opportunity and I can prove it.

Decline reason:

Duplicate to the one above. Should only have one open at a time (procedural close with no comment on it's merits) Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:39, 17 November 2020 (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.

I can conclusively say with all honesty that I've not violated the terms of use of Wikipedia, or having any other users to help me with editing something. Many people are constantly trying to address the wrong information on that page, and I'm just one of those people. On the other hand few users are free to spread misinformation, and if your try to edit it, you get blocked. How is this better for the Wikipedia community? Praveen77777 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2020 (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).

Praveen77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can conclusively say with all honesty that I've not violated the terms of use of Wikipedia, or having any other users to help me with editing something. Many people are constantly trying to address the wrong information on that page, and I'm just one of those people. On the other hand few users are free to spread misinformation, and if your try to edit it, you get blocked. How is this better for the Wikipedia community?

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (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.