User talk:Sraiki

November 2013

Hello, I'm Aleksa Lukic. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Thalochi dialect, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Alex^{discussion ★} 13:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not resume the edit war you've been conducting as an IP: it is obvious that you've been doing this for a long tim,e. If this happens again I will block this account as a disruption-only account. Acroterion (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Multani dialect. Alex^{discussion ★} 13:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing again

Sraiki you were blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring and you have started again in the same manner on Languages of Pakistan Macedonish (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Kindly unblock me. I have only one account

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit-warring across multiple articles in conjunction with several IPs. You have not addressed this issue. Huon (talk) 10:21, 4 July 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.

Unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Malformed appeal. Just Chilling (talk) 18:15, 29 July 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.

I am not Bhural. and also I did not use account of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhural, So I may be unblocked, Please.Sraiki (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

I am blocked by mistake, I am working other rojects also Sraiki (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to address the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhural/Archive specifically and in detail. Bland denials butter no parsnips and waste your time and ours. Just Chilling (talk) 18:24, 29 July 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.

I am not able to edit the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhural/Archive for giving my point of view and request. kindly unblock me.Sraiki (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Bhural. and also I did not use account of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhural, So I may be unblocked, Please.Sraiki (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to edit the sockpuppet report - you can give your explanation here in a fresh appeal which must be much more detailed than another flat denial. Just Chilling (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear I am blocked and made request to unblock me. I was blocked by misunderstanding. I am only using my account. I am not using other account. I am not Sockpuppet of any account. By chance some edits were similar so in this way my account was blocked. I have not worked in this wiki since last many years. I must be unblocked so that i may work properly in this wiki. Now I try my best to work in proper manners. I shall not take part in any edit war. My request be approved. Sraiki (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 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.

Request that 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).

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

Request reason:

Dear administrator, I want to make some request, kindly I may be favored.

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and
the block is no longer necessary because I have

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.Sraiki (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your ability to make further appeals has been withdrawn due to multiple frivolous requests that do not address the reasons for blocking. MER-C 12:44, 7 September 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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19239 was submitted on Sep 14, 2017 17:27:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20937 was submitted on Mar 20, 2018 11:02:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]