User talk:Sarabveer

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I have fixed up my article so it doesn't violate copyright. Vigyani found the original source where SikhiWiki got there info, which is AKJ Radio. But I have rewritten the copyrighted parts of article, so Copyright, and Close-paraphrasing should not be an issue. But, I have asked Vigyani several times to tell me which part of my article is not neutral, he never gave a reply with anything not-neutral in my article; If anyone could, please state out the pieces in my article that is not-neutral. I will try to put my article in my sandbox. If I can't, I will put it in my talk page. Sarabveer (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So you're telling me that you edit warred to your preferred version of an article, which contained copyrighted text that you don't yet have permission to use? PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I have fixed up my article so it doesn't violate copyright. Vigyani found the original source where SikhiWiki got there info, which is AKJ Radio. But I have rewritten the copyrighted parts of article, so Copyright, and Close-paraphrasing should not be an issue. But, I have asked Vigyani several times to tell me which part of my article is not neutral, he never gave a reply with anything not-neutral in my article; If anyone could, please state out the pieces in my article that is not-neutral. I will try to put my article in my sandbox. If I can't, I will put it in my talk page. Sarabveer (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined without review of history as you just reused the same request. Not the way to get unblocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Also, I forgot to sign in with the other IP, (72.68.18.254) doesn't Wikipedia automatically link the IP with Username? Sarabveer (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

'I forgot to sign in' is not going to be a convincing argumnent, considering it happened twice in a day and then you used a different IP once more to continue reverting after you were blocked. (Also, no, IPs are not automatically linked with usernames.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 14 September 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Wikipedia Administrators. I would love to help out Wikipedia again. I have learned from my mistakes and have grown up and become mature.

Decline reason:

Decline due to continued socking and block evasion. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2015 (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 assume this is the standard offer. I see a lot of warnings and problems with copyright violations on your talk page history, so I'm going to need some convincing before I can contemplate an unblock. What sort of articles do you want to work on, and what positive things can you bring to the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Please be aware that this account was socking just prior to making this request and has continued to evade their block via logged-out edits.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]