User talk:Vikepro

This is Vikepro's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: K. Annamalai (October 18)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This has been covered so many times that I can categorically say it will not be accepted, at least not without any sources!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vikepro! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:K. Annamalai

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:K. Annamalai requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.jagranjosh.com/articles/upsc-ias-real-life-singham-ips-k-annamalai-the-man-beyond-khaki-upsc-success-story-1645594792-1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, I'm Ok123l. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2023 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Ok123l (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia if, as you did at 2023 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election. 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. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2023 Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election. 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. Ok123l (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Bajrang Dal, you may be blocked from editing. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Hi, I think you should explain the following:

Why you posted this personal attack on Subharaj27's user page.

Why you posted a 'warning' on the same user's talk page, pretending to be an administrator.

Why your own userpage says that this is your alternative account. What is your main account, then?

And while you're at it, perhaps you could also explain why on the same page you say you've been editing for over 5 months, when this account was registered less than a month ago? Which account did you use previously?

Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 months ago I have started editing Wikipedia pages in my sister's account. Now on 18 October 2023 I have created my personal Wikipedia account.so I have given in my userpage that I am editing since 5 months but now I have corrected it. And I have given a warning to the user Subharaj27 as he was vandalising a election page repeatedly and was creating fake opinion polls. After the warnings the user has now stopped vandalsing the pages in fear.

Thanks🙏 Vikepro (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not create or edit other user's userpages. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock my account as i think you blocked my account for no reasons.

Dear UtherSRG,

I think i have only asked the admin to delete my userpage as it was messed but why you blocked my account. I have not done any disruptive edits, you can see my contributions on Wikipedia.please unblock my account.

Thank you Regards Vikepro Vikepro (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you for your edits to another user's talk page, which you were warned about before. Enjoy your time off of Wikipedia and consider how to better act constructively here. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear UtherSRG

But I have not added something wrong or misleading on another user's talk page. I have only added that the name of the user is subharaj and he generally edits political Wikipedia pages , so what's wrong here? To correct my previous mistake so I decided to create his good userpage. Please unblock me because in India elections are going on in my locality, so I need access to my account to edit those election results and updates. I thought that it will be good to made userpage for him. Sorry bro I will not do this mistake again in my future but now please unblock me.🙏

LOVE FROM INDIA🇮🇳

Thank you🙏

Best regards Vikepro (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please unlock me it's urgent and I request you to read my previous comment. Vikepro (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no deadlines. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you restore my userpage. I want to restore it. Vikepro (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the {{unblock}} template as described above. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiraj Prasad Sahu

Hi,

Do you have a reference for Dhiraj Prasad Sahu leaving or being removed from office, per your edit to List of current members of the Rajya Sabha? There are obvious a lot of news stories at the minute, so it's difficult to read through them all. If accurate, it would be good to reflect this on his own page too, but I'm reluctant to do that without a source.

Thanks Oravrattas (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rajya Sabha by removing Dhiraj Prasad Sahu without Wikipedia:RS. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Manipur Legislative Assembly, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dhruv edits (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Luxury rail trains in India into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lok Sabha, you may be blocked from editing. Ok123l (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2022 Manipur Legislative Assembly election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2022 Manipur Legislative Assembly election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Manipur Legislative Assembly

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Manipur Legislative Assembly, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manipur election

@Vikepro. BJP and NPP fought the election separately without any alliance. Any alliance formed after the election should not be added to infobox of the election page. Dhruv edits (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikepro Also read what is vandalism. Do not call legitimate edits as vandalism. Dhruv edits (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vistadome coaches moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Vistadome coaches. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it includes content copied from elsewhere. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Gaurav Trains moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Bharat Gaurav Trains. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vistadome coaches (December 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.railmitra.com/blog/vistadome-coach-enjoy-the-panoramic-view-in-luxurious-coach-with-glass-ceiling. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Vistadome coaches may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

Please read and understand WP:CV, and make sure to stop adding copyright violations into articles. If you persist with these violations, you may be eventually blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bharat Gaurav Trains (December 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sungodtemple were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

All sources are echoing PR from the train operator.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bharat Gaurav Trains and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

Please heed to WP:AGF. You repeatedly accuse other editors of vandalising Wikipedia, when they revert your edits, even if they do so with reason. Here, you accused Dhruv edits of vandalising the page when he just corrected the infobox, BJP and NPP in fact did not contest the election together in a prepoll alliance. Another instance is Here, when the aforementioned user removed content added by you because it was unsourced, and you again, accused them of vandalising. You even added a notice for vandalism on my talk page when I removed an unsourced content added by you. There are many other instances (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in which you accused other editors of vandalisation when their edits were justified or at worst, debatable, but not clearly vandalism. Please be gentle with other editors and do not repeat this again. Ok123l (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also please keep your edit summaries WP:CIVIL, as opposed to this and this. Ok123l (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vikepro, it only took me a few clicks to realize that the above message is completely correct. Such vandalism accusations are unacceptable, as are such warnings for edits like this. Please consider this a final warning; you've been warned plenty of times, and even blocked for disruptive and uncollegial behavior. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vistadome coaches (December 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drmies was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

After copyvio removal there is not much left here, and certainly no reliable secondary sources that make this topic notable. Content is borderline promotional, and the writing on the whole is sub-par.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vistadome coaches and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drmies (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view and use of Wikipedia for promotion

Content of Wikipedia articles needs to be written from a neutral point of view. I have seen a number of edits of yours which fail to comply with that requirement; for example, "The Bharat Gaurav trains are a great way to explore the rich and varied culture of India" is not suitable: whether something is a great way to do something is an opinion, as is whether culture is "rich". Please bear this in mind in your future editing.
Nowhere in Wikipedia, whether in an article or in any other kind of page, is it permissible to post promotional material. Your user page consists very largely of promotion of political views and of a political party. Wikipedia policy allows immediate deletion of such a promotional page, but rather than delete it I shall just blank the page, so as to make it easier to restore the non-promotional part if you wish to. Please don't post any promotional material again. JBW (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hello. Please stop writing edit summaries in all-capital letters like at Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance. It is disruptive editing. If you disagree with some content, please start a discussion on that article's talk page instead of shouting in edit summaries. Thank you! — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I will use small letters next time. Vikepro (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 18:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked in the past and know better than to edit war regardless of whether you believe you're right. Continued disruption when the block ends will likely lead to an INDEF, so recommend you spend these two weeks planning how you will edit productively and within the project's guidelines. Star Mississippi 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Looks like @Vikepro hasn't learned — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Opinion polling for the 2024 Indian general election, you may be blocked from editing. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have talk with the editor. I have reverted his edits because it was creating too much errors. You can see his talkpage if you are not believing. He also said me that he fixed his errors. Vikepro (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 16:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately returning to the same behavior post unblock is disruptive. As such, you'll have to make a case to be unblocked in the future. (Thanks @DaxServer) Star Mississippi 16:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First go to the talk page of that user whose edits were reverted by me.I reverted those edits because it was creating too much errors and it makes the article unresponsive. if you are not believing then visit the talk page of that user. He has mentioned that he solved the errors.now unblock me. Vikepro (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

You have been blocked me because you admins thought that I have done disruptive edits in this article. In reality I have reverted those edits which were only creating some errors and makes the article page unresponsive and dull. I have already talked with the user whose articles I have reverted @Ok123. This user also replied to that talk that he has fixed his errors. Visit here and that talk page in which he said that he has fixed his errors.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_Indian_general_election?markasread=306728755&markasreadwiki=enwiki Vikepro (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2024 (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
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. UtherSRG (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

You have been blocked me because you admins thought that I have done disruptive edits in this article. In reality I have reverted those edits which were only creating some errors and makes the article page unresponsive and dull. I have already talked with the user whose articles I have reverted @Ok123. This user also replied to that talk that he has fixed his errors. Visit here and that talk page in which he said that he has fixed his errors.[1]

Decline reason:

Why do you think repeating an already declined request would have a different result? 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. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:40, 26 February 2024 (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.

@Daxserver Vikepro (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Simply repeating the previous, unsuccessful appeal is likely to be met with the same response. And if you keep doing that, it may be regarded as tendentious, which could result in the removal of your talk page access. Just something to bear in mind. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop submitting multiple requests. Only only will be considered and you're being disruptive which does not help your case for an unblock. Star Mississippi 15:34, 26 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

You have been blocked me because you admins thought that I have done disruptive edits in this article. In reality I have reverted those edits which were only creating some errors and makes the article page unresponsive and dull. I have already talked with the user whose articles I have reverted @Ok123. This user also replied to that talk that he has fixed his errors. Visit here and that talk page in which he said that he has fixed his errors.[2]DaxServerStar MississippiDoubleGrazing ::I Have understand my mistake, from now I would ask/will take permissions from the editors before reverting their edits in any case. the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because I have understand what I have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and ::willI Have understand my mistake, from now I would ask/will take permissions from the editors before reverting their edits in any case. the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because I have understand what I have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and ::will make useful contributions instead. make useful contributions instead.

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
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. Since you aren't getting the point, it's time to remove your talk page access. UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2024 (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.

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. Vikepro (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I am mentioned in his request so I just wanted to leave my comment here. The pretense for him reverting the edits I made was that it made the page "dull and unresponsive". That was very exaggerated and vague as the page just needed a small cleanup. I do believe that his/her edit warring was unwarranted. On top of that, he accused me of vandalism when I removed some opinion polls that did not show a margin of error, when I was just following the rules mentioned at MOS:INDELECT. "Opinion poll results without margin of error and sample size are misleading and should not be added." Ok123l (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. UtherSRG (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Vijay Sharma

Hello, Vikepro. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vijay Sharma, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Vistadome coaches

Hello, Vikepro. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vistadome coaches, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Vijay Sharma

Hello, Vikepro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Vijay Sharma".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Vistadome coaches

Hello, Vikepro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Vistadome coaches".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]