User talk:Babakin007

December 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Satyananda Saraswati. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Nthep (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. 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|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:52, 8 December 2014 (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).

Babakin007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologise for my past actions and will not repeat it and participate in a constructive manner, Kindly unblock my account

Decline reason:

You'll need to request unblock from your original account. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:39, 14 December 2014 (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).

Babakin007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Sir, this is the only account that I operate, you can check the ip address of my log in, in the process of correcting the changes in Satyananda page several people were involved, I will be grateful if i am unblocked

Decline reason:

You want to be unblocked so you can resume engaging in the same disruptive behavior? No. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:18, 16 December 2014 (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.

A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you "apologise for [your] past actions and will not repeat it and participate in a constructive manner"; can you say in what way your editing will be different, and what about your past editing you regard as unacceptable? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2014 (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).

Babakin007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My past actions involved deleting the maliscious content repeatedly without giving reason, I apologise for that. I will now contribute only in costructive manner and not engage in any edit war. I hope that I will be given one more chance.Regards

Decline reason:

Could you give some indication of which articles you want to edit? Also, how will you resolve editing disagreements? PhilKnight (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2014 (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.

On User talk:Semichastny, it has been suggested that you acted on behalf of another editor, that is what we sometimes refer to as acting as a 'meatpuppet'. Is this true? PhilKnight (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,I did have conversation with semichastny but acted on my own.Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babakin007 (talk • contribs)