User talk:Proudhindu256

May 2021

Hello, I'm AviationFreak. I noticed that in this edit to Himanta Biswa Sarma, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AviationFreak💬 04:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I reverted some of your edits, in which you removed images from infoboxes claiming they weren't licensed. Please check the file pages to see that these uses are indeed either licensed or fair-use. If you object to the fair-use rationale or believe the licensing info is incorrect, please say so at the file talk pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your recent edits are hard to understand. It looks like all of them are on pages recently edited by No Great Shaker, with some edits being purely cosmetic (e.g. removing spaces in lists, adding back empty template parameters). Can you explain your recent editing behavior? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Firefangledfeathers and AviationFreak. This person is a sockpuppet of User:256Drg, even using same digits. I've reported him at ARV and requested block. We need to revert all edits. He is trying to attack me because I got him blocked before but he doesn't seem to realise that with rollback I can just swat all his rubbish on one article in a single click. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker, thanks for the info. I did some partial reverts, which you should feel free to sweep away if you're going to be restoring old versions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

FYI, even if any of your edits today have been "good", they still constitute vandalism because of block evasion and sockpuppetry. See WP:SPI, btw, for your latest case. Entries by a block-evading vandal can be retained by bona fide editors at their discretion but, as far as you are concerned, there is no chance of that happening. Any editor with rollback can remove all your edits at one article with a single click and, as we deal with vandals on a daily basis anyway, it's no problem to us. In fact, all you are doing is providing us with useful vandal detection practice. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link for easy access - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/256Drg -- DaxServer (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:256Drg per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/256Drg. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. – bradv🍁 01:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]