User talk:MDPMHG

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi MDPMHG! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 04:54, Wednesday, June 26, 2019 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

June 2019

Hello, I'm Aranya. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Shruti Seth. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! Aranya (talk | contribs) 04:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Edward Harwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John

Philip Furneaux (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Hello @ST47: I'm not a sockpuppet account sir MDPMHG (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that you are User:AR.Dmg, which means that you have created a new account in order to evade a block. Denying this will not be helpful. If you want to appeal, there is Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and you would type {{unblock|1=**your explanation here**}} at the bottom of this page. However, be aware that repeatedly making false unblock requests can result in loss of your ability to edit this page, and it is generally recommended that you return to your original Wikipedia account to discuss the unblock there. ST47 (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not using multiple accounts for misusing Wikipedia. I'm a genuine editor. I can do anything to prove my authenticity. I don't know vc4137 or either AR.Dmg because of whom I have been blocked. I request to look into the matter and assist me to prove myself innocent. I do assure you, and I admit I'm not doing any harm to Wikipedia. And I do anything to get myself unblock. As you said I'm AR.Dmg Ok sir I accept my mistake. I don't want to hide my mistake. I agree with you. I can cheat. But the system won't. Sir I'm a genuine editor please give a chance to prove myself. I know I had been blocked due to sock puppetry and using multiple accounts. I will take the charge of my account for which I have block. Do give me a chance to rectify mistake sir. I won't do it again and would not create havoc. I am aware of Wikipedia policy and I will abide my them MDPMHG (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you admit you are AR.dmg, you will need to return to that account to request to be unblocked; that's going to be difficult since you first denied it. Likely your only pathway to being unblocked is the standard offer; no edits or socking for six months. Even then, you will need to address your attempts to evade your block and your efforts to be dishonest with us. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2019 (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.

@MDPMHG: I do have some questions for you. Feel free to answer here or back on your original account:

Can you please tell us, as well as you can remember, all of the Wikipedia accounts that you have used?
Your recent edits on Sanjivani and KSK seem to have met some resistance. For each of those articles, do you know why other users reverted your edits? Is there anything you could have done other than revert back?

If you are willing to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, it is possible to be unblocked, potentially under the standard offer that 331dot mentioned. Potentially sooner, especially since it looks to me that you are trying to constructively work on articles rather than continue with the same thing that led to your original block. However, we need to understand that you will work with other editors in the future, and follow the policies, guidelines, and community consensus in your editing, rather than create sockpuppets and use edit warring. ST47 (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2019 (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).

MDPMHG (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:

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. Yamla (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2019 (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.

sir as you asked questions. I would definitely like to answer all questions before you unblock me.

As you asked how many account do I have used or remember. I have starting Wikipedia using Vivek Chourasia, Vivek Chourasia vc4137 and Vc4137. But during that time I was in school and was immature don't know much about Wikipedia. So I did many mistakes I accept that I have been warned many times. I won't hide anything from Wikipedia community. I created the first 3 account as I was immature. Don't know much about Wikipedia. But from the past account AR.Dmg I was working in contributing Wikipedia, and was trying to follow Wikipedia policy. You can contact @Cyphoidbomb:. As I was taking assistant from sir about guidance If I do something wrong through my edit. He also guide me to don't do edit warring and discuss it on the talk page. I had lost all the access of my previous account sir, I accept my mistake that I was immature I was involved in sockpuppets and edit warring previously. I will rectify my mistake if I get the change. The first four account was loged in a cell which has been destroyed in an accident. And my AR.Dmg was blocked from editing so I can't request from there. As with the new account MDPMHG, I promise to accept my mistake and I will acknowledge all my accounts in these account. And I can assure u that I won't repeat my mistake which I used to do previously like sockpuppets, edit warring or being rude with ip user. I will abide by the Wikipedia guidelines and policy
the second question Sanjivani and KSK. I accept that I missed mos and infobox of television which I didn't followed properly. I shouldn't revert the edit. But I should discuss with my fellow editor about my edit if they revert it and if their edit summary doesn't justify it. And also thanks them if my guide me and help contribute Wikipedia.

At last I would like to say that I am going to take the ownership of all my account and would mention it if I get unblocked. I will definitely follow the Wikipedia guidelines and policy and would not repeat it again, I have understood why I have been block from editing Wikipedia. It a Encyclopaedia which everyone refers and so we need to neutral point of view to create good article and as @331dot: sir said about Wikipedia:Standard offer. I will totally rectify each of my mistake which I had done till now sir. I know I had been dishonest at first, I'm extremely sorry for that. I would not do this again. Thanks for your consideration. MDPMHG (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

I'm about to log off for the day, but I did want to thank you for your replies, and I'll check back tomorrow. For any other reviewing admins: The previous account User:AR.Dmg had some issues with images and pages getting speedied, but nothing that resulted in a block. Neither this account nor the previous one made any attempts to re-create the Vivek Chourasia article (which was the cause of the original block), and they're currently being honest and appear to be acting in good faith. I'm inclined to unblock with an indefinite single-account restriction and a short term 1RR restriction. Any comments or suggestions from other unblock reviewers? ST47 (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ST47: will I be get unblock sir. I'm ready to accept my mistake and rectify it. Along assuming and assuring Wikipedia that I won't repeat again ever. Thanks for your consideration sir. MDPMHG (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

decline july 6

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).

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

Request reason:

@Yamla: I accept my mistake I had created five total account Vivek Chourasia, Vivek Chourasia vc4137 and Vc4137, AR.Dmg and MDPMHG due to which I was blocked. And with the first three account I was editing simultaneously which has led to revoke my editing rights. And also I did not take the ownership and also acknowledge in my account about it. You can check my both account contribution [[1]] and [[2]] are assumed in good faith and neutral point of view. I am not creating any deleting article repeatedly which does not show notability to be a article in Wikipedia Vivek Chourasia. I understand my third account is the reason for my block as due to which I had become a suspect of sock puppetry as I was using more than one account to edit pages and I have understood and accept my mistake which I will not repeat or do something like this again. I will not do any damage to Wikipedia and I assure you all about that, as my first three account details I have lost and I can't get access of it ever. At present I do have two account AR.Dmg and MDPMHG and both of them are blocked and if I get unblock I would not do sock puppetry, no edit warring and would have a good rapport with my fellow editor alongside good faith edit to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks for considering sir. MDPMHG (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I was going to say 1) appeal on original account and 2) wait 6 months. However @ST47: expressed willingness to unblock. So, please stop making unblock requests until ST47 replies annd we discuss this with Yamla, who declined the unblock Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2019 (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 discussion

(edit conflict) You've worked pretty hard to convince us we shouldn't unblock you. You knew perfectly well you weren't permitted to set up additional accounts to WP:EVADE your block. Given your wilful and deliberate violations, it's highly unlikely any admin will unblock you at this time. Your only realistic chance is to earn back the community trust by following the process outlined in WP:SO. This requires six months with zero edits, across any accounts. Failure to do this is likely to result in your indefinite ban from Wikipedia, given your long history of abuse stretching back these past 18 months. --Yamla (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I pretty well agree with you, but ST47 expressed the intent to unblock. So, I've pinged them for further discussion. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to others unblocking this user. I certainly wouldn't, given the non-stop block evasion, multiple sockpuppets including ones not listed here (for example, VC DMG, VivekChourasia 143, Insomanic lover, Music VC, Vcksg4137). I think this person is a poor candidate for unblocking, has been abusive since September 2016, and has continued to be less than forthcoming here. But again, I don't object if others want to lift the block. It's easy enough to reblock the account if there's any further abuse. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Yamla:, @Dlohcierekim:, @331dot:, @ST47:, I really missed out as I don't remember the account which Yamla sir mentioned. I agree with you sir I started editing Wikipedia around 2016 I won't hide. I forgot about the exact number of account, I created thank you for reminding me. Yes I agree with you I had been associated with multiple accounts. And was involved in sockpuppetry along with edit warring with fellow Wikipedia editor. I do try to rectify my mistake from my previous account user:AR.Dmg and was taking guidance from @Cyphoidbomb: if I was wrong at some point with my edit. And my current account user:MDPMHG, you can see my contribution but created few articles, fews pages tagged for deletion, fews non-free images uploaded, and minor some edit. And when ever situation arises of some kind of edit warring I tried to discuss on the talk page. I respect the work of everyone whether ip user, editor or admin. We are here to contribute and help Wikipedia grow. Yes I'm a poor candidate as I had breach the Wikipedia policy which say to have a neutral point of view and has to acknowledge and declare his or her additional account which I did not did. yamla, Dlohcierekim, 331dot, I too agree with you, that I should wait according to WP:SO, and then would again request to you all. I accept my mistake. I was not admitting that I have other account, I was dishonest with 331dot. I'm really bad user who should not be with Wikipedia, as I'm not making useful contribution, but do take a look at my contribution on both the recent account which I have [3] and [4] as of now. As I have access to both this account only. I have lost access to all the rest of my account. Do give a last chance to show me that I can be a good candidate from being bad candidate. And I assume and assure in good faith that I will not give a chance ever to complain or report to block me. And I will greatful to Wikipedia community if I have been granted a last chance to prove myself. And as Dlohcierekim sir said to stop request I'm sorry that I did reply and interfere because you want to discuss with ST47 sir and Yamla sir, this unblock request. I won't reply anymore and wait for the results of the discussion. Thanks for your consideration. MDPMHG (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sanguine about unblocking, but believe in the sovereignty of admins (within the rules and regulations pertaining thereto), if any wish to unblock. We are often forced to act/not act w/o adequate information. I leave it to ST47, and will support (if half-heartedly), their decision. I have confidence in the judgement of my peers and colleagues. It is easy, as you say, to reblock. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I do believe the same in the sovereignty of admins (within the rules and regulations pertaining thereto), I respect all admins work and I'm sorry for replying to the discussion proceedings. MDPMHG (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]