Jump to content

User talk:Consort-Plus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consort-Plus, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Consort-Plus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Devika Singh for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devika Singh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devika Singh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kahiin to Hoga (2019 TV series) moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Kahiin to Hoga (2019 TV series), does not appear ready to be published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 01:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftspace

[edit]

Hi, please don't move articles from draft to article without it first being approved by an WP:AFC reviewer. I've moved Draft:Kahiin to Hoga (2019 TV series) back to a draft.– Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 05:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ram Siya Ke Lov Kush.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ram Siya Ke Lov Kush.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Consort-Plus,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vish (Colors TV).jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vish (Colors TV).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Consort-Plus,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Consort-Plus,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 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).

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

Request reason:

hello I am accepted that I am using multiple accounts. Because I am not an experienced user of Wikipedia. So that I am using multiple accounts because I am completely unknown about Wikipedia multiple accounts using policy please sir allow me to use my original account and my second account if you have don't allow me to use so delete the new account permanently and I promise you I will never using multiple again in future but for now I request you sir please accept my unblock request iam sorry for what I have done. I did not intend to violate your rules or break any rules, so I request you to forgive me, thanks.Consort-Plus (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't very convincing: why did you register two accounts? Are there any other accounts we don't know about? Furthermore, this appeal fails to demonstrate the necessary competence in written English for contributing constructively. MER-C 19:21, 25 October 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.

Request for unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

hello I am accepted that I am using multiple accounts. and my ression to using two accounts because I am completely forgot my login password and I don't have registered email address in my account so that I am recovered my login password Wikipedia. and also I am unexperienced user So that I am using multiple accounts because I am completely unknown about Wikipedia multiple accounts using policy please sir allow me to use my second account and delete this account permanently and I promise you I will never using multiple again in future but for now I request you sir please accept my unblock request iam sorry for what I have done. I did not intend to violate your rules or break any rules, so I request you to forgive me, thanks.Consort-Plus (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are simultaneously asking to be unblocked over on User talk:Update once even after I told you how inappropriate this is. You are deliberately continuing to violate WP:SOCK despite being blocked and despite being warned for it. It would be deeply inadvisable to lift your block. Yamla (talk) 20:08, 26 October 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.


Appeal For Unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

The list of accounts created by me, required by you to unblock the account are as follows: * User:Consort-Plus * User:Update once As me being unaware of the Sockpuppet and the process to Unblock the account, I created another accounts to edit Wikipedia. I hope you believe in me, as I am very honest at every point asked by you. I hope you to consider this request by having a little faith in me and not declining the request. This is a sincere and honest request which I hope would now not be declined. As far as Wikipedia:Sock puppetry multiple account using is considered, I have read all the guidelines and conditions for the same in this period of time and also I have read all the guidelines and conditions to create or edit an article on Wikipedia. I am sure that you would believe in me as all the things said above by me are true and honest to you to consider to unblock my account and as far as all the above accounts are concerned, I would remove immediately all of the above as soon as my account is unblocked.Consort-Plus (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 15:06, 28 November 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.

For what it's worth, it appears that the editor is being honest about what accounts were being used. SQLQuery me! 03:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Bbb23: Can you clarify the reasons for the block? There is no time overlap between the two accounts (before the block Consort-Plus's last edit was on 14 October, and the account "Update once" was created on 23 October), and there is no page which both accounts have edited. Nothing I can see shows any more than a fresh start with a new account, but I am sure there must be more to it than that, as you would not have even carried out a CU, let alone blocked the accounts, without evidence of abuse. I would be grateful if you could give some indication what kind of abuse, rather than just use, of multiple accounts there has been. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: First, Consort-Plus created Devika Singh (deleted), and Update once created Draft:Devika Singh. Second, there were abusive logged out edits by the user, causing me to block IPs. Indeed, it was the IP editing that triggered the check.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not being a CheckUser I can't assess the logged out edits, but I don't understand the relevance of the fact that the editor created the Devika Singh with the old account, and then, after having switched to the new account, created Draft:Devika Singh. Presumably if the two creations had been done using the same account it might be grounds for a G4 speedy deletion and a warning about recreating content removed as a result of a deletion discussion, but not for a block. Doing the same after a switch to another account might warrant a friendly message explaining why doing so without declaring the alternative account was not a good idea, but again not a block. I have to accept that the logged out edits may, as far as I know, justify the block, because the logged in ones certainly don't. Consort-Plus, I hope another CheckUser will come along and assess the unblock request soon, as until that happens you will just have to wait. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 20:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consort-Plus, please see this section of policy, and the first bullet point under #4, "With the permission of the affected user". Do the checkusers have your permission to discuss your IP editing publicly? This would allow Bbb23 or any checkuser to discuss this with JBW and other admins.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


hello Berean Hunter sir I am allowe checker users to discuss my IP editing publicly. Because I know that what I have done it's only editing other it is done for dispute editing or disabled accounts creation. So I am with you done what ever you want. Thanks Consort-Plus (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal For Unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

The list of accounts created by me, required by you to unblock the account are as follows: *User:Goodd-002 *User:Consort-Plus *User:Ladchad *User:The citty *User:Update once As me being unaware of the Sockpuppet and the process to Unblock the account, I created another accounts to edit Wikipedia. I hope you believe in me, as I am very honest at every point asked by you. I hope you to consider this request by having a little faith in me and not declining the request. Consort-Plus (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is perfectly clear that you have continued to evade your block by IP editing after you said that you were so sorry and wouldn't do the same again, and pretty clear that the list of accounts you have admitted is not at all complete. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 19:46, 14 December 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.

Blanking

[edit]

You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block, as you did here. Please do not do so again. You are free to make new requests. --Yamla (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Consort-Plus&oldid=930781621"