User talk:Y2kdsp007

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Crepeguys, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. AllyD (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Wart, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. You have been mentioned in an investigation into sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PictureTrivia, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence, and others have added additional evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of PictureTrivia (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|I am not included in scokpuppet. I was using my own ip. And some one else was also editing the same page simultaneously from some other place. So it has been a confusion. Please unblock me and also explain me how to improve my wiki skills. I want to be a good person here.}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello Dennis Brown, I was editing that page because I read about that goat article in one of the magzines, and also one of my friends insisted to edit that page. May be he also was editing the page from somewhere. So it shows you the multiple account. I have written the articles in some of my own language and posted it there. I am also a newbie here. So it will take time for me to learn what to do and how to do. Please unblock me. Thanx

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Y2kdsp007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not included in scokpuppet. I was using my own ip. And some one else was also editing the same page simultaneously from some other place. So it has been a confusion. Please unblock me and also explain me how to improve my wiki skills. I want to be a good person here.

Accept reason:

See below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin has left it to my judgment. I can unblock you if you agree to follow all of Wikipedia's policies from now on. In particular, do not:

Add external links to commercial websites, such as [1]. This is considered spam.
Blank or remove large sections of articles without discussion, such as [2].

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I do agree sir. I have learnt a lot and I agree and I promise to work honestly.

King of hearts, this user has replied. He requests you look into it. (Helper at the IRC here) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:44, 16 May 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).

Y2kdsp007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear admin, I m here ton inform you that I was not at all included in sockpuppetry. I don't know this person called Nickaang. May be use of some proxy server from that person might have caused this problem. I am 100% sure that I m not included in sockpuppetry. So Please unblock me. Thanx

Decline reason:

The first time the behaviours and IP matched, it may indeed have been a very rare error - and you were unblocked then. The second time? No. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (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).

Y2kdsp007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been very sincere regarding all the wikipedia guidelines. I was banned for sock-puppetry. I was told not to edit wikipedia pages for 6 months as punishment and told that I could apply for unblock after 6 months. Hence I am applying for it now after 6 month. Dilip (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No response to follow up question. Kuru (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2013 (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.

It may be helpful to be a little more transparent here. Clearly, this account has solely been used for paid editing. You appear to have been taking jobs from spammers, and may or may not be mixed up with a larger group that was editing abusively. Can you state which other accounts were yours, and are you intending on resuming paid advocacy instead of normal editing? Kuru (talk) 03:21, 17 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).

Y2kdsp007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been very sincere regarding all the wikipedia guidelines. I was banned for sock-puppetry. I was told not to edit wikipedia pages for 6 months as punishment and told that I could apply for unblock after 6 months. Hence I am applying for it now after 6 months.I am ready to be more helpful to be more transparent here.Its true this account was solely been used for paid editing. I was using another account called Bhavana.parihar. I am not at all intended in resuming paid advocacy. I am fully dedicated towards the normal editing. Let me know what else wikipedia would require from my side to get me unblocked. Dilip (talk) 11:55 pm, 20 November 2013, Wednesday (16 days ago) (UTC+11)

Decline reason:

Please answer Kuru's question above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:52, 6 December 2013 (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 accepted the request.

Y2kdsp007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have told that my another account was "bhavana.parihar". I have answered Kuru's question. So let me know how I can come back to wikipedia. Dilip (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am unblocking, conditional on your understanding that if you do any edits whatsoever that can be construed as having been paid editing, promoting a product or organziation, or anything else in contravention of Wikipedia's purpose or policy, you will be reblocked indefinitely and your talk page editing rights revoked. Also, I require that on your talk page here, the declined unblock requests, this accepted unblock request, and this contained section remain without any material being deleted, so any administrator will see the history clearly. Deleting it will be grounds for a reblock. This will expire in 12 months from the initial unblock, assuming your editing has been fine in the intervening time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]