User talk:Utkarsh555

Happy Birthday!

Wishing Utkarsh555 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU Thank you very much!! Utkarsh555 14:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Happy Birthday Utkarsh! 🎉 Peter Ormond 💬 14:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Ormond Thank you very much, sire! Utkarsh555 03:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Commitee Removal due to Inactivity

Removal from member list

You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself.

Best wishes, --Isro! ^chatter 16:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please

I do not want to get cancelled out. This suffering from being disconnected from wiki is getting on me. i shouldn't have exploited the rules, but i am here again. i want to be free, but i am highly ashamed of putting an unblocking request. I hope that i pass this block with atleast patience. i am too afraid to put a request, as it would likely get rejected, and i am too sensitive to face any backlash now on internet, due to past and current toxicity on social media and internet. Utkarsh555 12:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and despite my "often" activites on ither language wikipedias, i feel empty here due to block on me. Utkarsh555 12:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confession

I confess to committing felony of misbehaving and constant rebelling against the blocks/sanctions on me and I fully acknowledge my act. The recent creation of a[nother] multiple account of BoyHayHay was a mistake that I could have avoided and stayed under the lock. Keeping myself away from a hobby had made me a little desperate, and I didn't knew of what to do. So in an attempt of resuming my Wiki-mania, I created "a sockpuppet" account, and tried to avoid the traces that might get me caught; but looks like my old habit got be locked again and eventually I landed back to square one. What ever my edits were made through that new account, didn't aimed to harass anyone, or do disruptiveness of Wikipedia; it was all an attempt of satisfying my Wiki-mania.

A really serious request: please DO NOT revert my edits. I was just editing to satisfy my information collecting and representing hobby. I haven't performed any form of disruptive editing and tried my best to avoid doing so.

I don't really know if I would be continued to be blocked and then later on banned/removed throughout ALL wiki (or just this Eng Wiki) or ever be loosened the grip.

(A note: user "Sarwan Kumar Pandey" was used by me, but it originally belonged to my father, who had ever once created an account years back. It laid dormant since then, and so I though of jumping on it; but that that too ended in misery.) Utkarsh555 06:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I plead guilty. Utkarsh555 07:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I give up/give in. Utkarsh555 07:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I have noticed that a Page recently created by me of "Embassy of India, São Tomé" was deleted under policies of ban, deny and evasion. I understand the 1st and 3rd terms, but using "deny" one is not right. i am not seeking an attention; i just wanted to work on wikipedia. I strongly object against the deletion of a diplomatic mission page.

I have no power, authority or even any form of say to this, but rejecting this stance, i urge the admins to redirect page to India–São Tomé and Príncipe relations, rather.

I have nothing to do with vandalism, and i again apologize of evasion, but punishing like this is not right. Utkarsh555 06:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request

If it is the case that my edits are being deleted, then I would like to know what these redirects would suffer as their fate.

11:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

Utkarsh555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that my non-compliance with the policies, rules and guidelines of Wikipedia were derogatory and harmful conduct for others as well as myself. The illogical stubbornness and then furthering evade by creating multiple sock accounts had seriously damaged the trust of admins who tried to bring a stop on my activities. I apologize for my rebel attitude and beg for forgiveness. On this day of New Year, I also take a firm resolution to stand with wiki rules, act according and prevent any form of vandalism; (the utmost being in power is to bring any such to notice of others and discuss the issue).

Decline reason:

You were caught evading your block in December. Your only chance is to go at least six months with zero edits and zero evasion, then apply under WP:SO. Additionally, your comments below about page deletion make it very clear that it would be a bad idea to unblock you. Frankly, at this point, I'd oppose an unblock even if you waited six months. But anyway, 2023-07-01, that's the first time you are eligible for consideration under WP:SO and only if you stop evading your block. Yamla (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more careful next time. By the way, what will happen to that deleted link? I wish it was utilised some where. Thanks Yamla— Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarsh555 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 1 January 2023 (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 page deletion by Mr. Maile66 about a diplomatic mission of India has too silenced me to speak; about the basis on which they were deleted. I understand that I was wrong, but this could have been less of that original; that is, when I had redirected it to diplomatic relations page but was reverted by Mr.WikiCleanerMan.

In all, I have sorrow for my act. Please consider leniency🙏 Utkarsh555 05:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reason of block as "Vandalism"

Ok I tell you why I would usually redirect the diplomatic mission pages to the diplomatic relation pages. First, It would be a partiality to redirect the diplomatic mission page to either from the host country or to the host country. Now there might be some editors that might claim that "since it is embassy of [x] to [y], there fore it should be redirected to list of diplomatic missions of [x] or some one would show up and say 'no no, it should be list of diplomatic missions in [y] '. So as to prevent such bias, I thought that a straight neutral page would work as a better housing of the redirect. That's all was my aim. I know that I messed up at the already deleted page of "India–Vanuatu relations", because the page it self was a neutral subject that was deleted as per criteria mentioned. And, not knowing what to do with it or where to save the page, I commited aan act of what it would have been called Vandalism. That was all my fault. For the "Embassy of India, São Tomé" I propose the same redirect to "India–São Tomé and Príncipe relations". That was all I had to say and no more else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarsh555 (talk • contribs) 2023-01-02T11:58:59 (UTC)

Unblock request (using WP:SO)

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).

Utkarsh555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have had enough of the restriction on me. I understand my responsibility that I was being reckless and misused my privileges that didn't go well. Understanding that I would be under constant observation for keeping check on my behavior, I once again appeal to unblocked, as per the WP:SO. This is my one of the last chance to redeem myself back as I used to be back then (as a new user) and promise to keep check and balances on myself I humbly request you to consider my request.😔🙏 Utkarsh555 13:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined as there was clear block evasion. That also will reset the six month timer for the SO. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2023 (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.

You are not permitted to edit or remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Embassy of India, Ljubljana

The article Embassy of India, Ljubljana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All provided sources are primary. No coverage to meet WP:ORG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request as per WP:SO

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).

Utkarsh555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been more than a half year since I last appealed. I accept the terms, conditions and policies of this English Wikipedia. Appealing unblock request As per WP:SO. The one and only time when I would use this as a last resort. I won't redirect pages/titles unnecessarily or disruptively which would be categorised as disruptive editing. I have never vandalize any textual material or related media; my only fault was reckless page redirecting activities. I will adhere to strict rules and discipline set. I won't let myself to happen it again.

Decline reason:

Confirmed to IndianSainik. You are not eligible for WP:SO. Yamla (talk) 09:52, 2 July 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.