User talk:Kumargargavinash

Welcome!

Hello, Kumargargavinash, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Pt. Ramprakash Mishra, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is A great Singer

June 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Pt. Ramprakash Mishra, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 17:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Pt. Ramprakash Mishra. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 17:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pt. Ramprakash Mishra

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pt. Ramprakash Mishra, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Roshni Mukherjee

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Roshni Mukherjee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —teb728 t c 09:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Exam Fear

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Exam Fear requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Roshni Mukherjee

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Roshni Mukherjee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Deb (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of शत्रुघ्न तिवारी

The article शत्रुघ्न तिवारी has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Incomprehensible to readers - this is English Wikipedia.

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. Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (शत्रुघ्न तिवारी) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating शत्रुघ्न तिवारी, Kumargargavinash!

Wikipedia editor Lineslarge just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This page is marked for speedy deletion as per author's wishes.

To reply, leave a comment on Lineslarge's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Lineslarge (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could translate it? If it's notable, that would be a benefit. Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shatrughan Tiwari

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Shatrughan Tiwari requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shatrughan Tiwari

The article Shatrughan Tiwari has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello, Kumargargavinash. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 13:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is now increasingly obvious that you are writing advertorials here in violation of both our conflict of interest policies/guidelines as well as the terms of use. You will be blocked if this continues without you addressing the issues. —SpacemanSpiff 15:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can say that I am advertising anything. I am just adding the biigraphy of the persons I know with the suitable citations. Atlease provide me reasons that I am advertising something. Kumargargavinash (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising only account, possibly paid COI.

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 ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 23:54, 13 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

@SpacemanSpiff:I am not doing any advertisement works. I requested for the photo to the persons of the article I created and mistakenly uploaded as it is my own work.Please unblock Kumargargavinash (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree your edits are promotional; you will remain blocked until you are able to convince us that you understand why your edits are inappropriate. MER-C 12:24, 15 September 2017 (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.

I do not support an unblock but another admin will review and decide. You have been advertising on here for Exam Fear and its founder Roshni Mukherjee for close to two years now. —SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff: Please at least do not block me indefinitely. Please set a expiry date. I was doing very hard work to gather information from different sources and also asking by emailing them. Please do something. Please!! Kumargargavinash (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

@MER-C: Now I have read the policies and conflict of interest guideline. Since I was new to Wikipedia and didn't knew that which media or article is appropriate for Wikipedia. My edits was inappropriate because it shows deep interest of only mine in the subject or topic compared to others. I am accepting my mistake and promise you that I will not do such type of edits in future.
@SpacemanSpiff: I am not using any account other than this, I don't know how to prove it but if you tell I am happy to provide evidence you ask. Kumargargavinash (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close, old template still open. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:30, 2 October 2017 (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.

Kumargargavinash (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you using Gopalagarwal11‎ now? —SpacemanSpiff 22:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: I am not using any account other than this, I don't know how to prove it but if you tell I am happy to provide evidence you ask. I guess that you came to know about this on the basis of that Gopalagarawal11 is adding article ExamFear Education. You should understand that I am not the only person who is willing to do that article. Please unblock me as I am using one and only Kumargargavinash. Please don't ignore and try to understand. Thankyou Kumargargavinash (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even on the off-chance that you aren't using that account, there's definitely some coordination going on as when your creation of Exam Fear was deleted that account came by to create it, now that your copyvio uploads are up for deletion (on Commons), that account came up to upload another image on Commons. Given that your editing here has almost entirely been to add advertorials, I'm not comfortable unblocking you. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 16 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

@MER-C: Now I have read the policies and conflict of interest guideline. Since I was new to Wikipedia and didn't knew that which media or article is appropriate for Wikipedia. My edits was inappropriate because it shows deep interest of only mine in the subject or topic compared to others. I am accepting my mistake and promise you that I will not do such type of edits in future. Kumargargavinash (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks and no admin has decided to weigh in. You are welcome to request another unblock, but if you do so, please rewrite your request. Yamla (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2017 (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.

@SpacemanSpiff: will I ever unblocked or not? Please reply!
- See WP:OFFER. —SpacemanSpiff 04:11, 19 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Now I have read the policies and conflict of interest guideline. Since I was new to Wikipedia and didn't knew that which media or article is appropriate for Wikipedia. My edits was inappropriate because it shows deep interest of only mine in the subject or topic compared to others. I am accepting my mistake and promise you that I will not do such type of edits in future. Kumargargavinash (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At this juncture, the Standard Offer suggested by SpacemanSpiff above is likely to be your only route back to editing. This means that, provided you do not edit Wikipedia (using any account or IP address) in the interim, you can ask for your block to be reviewed again after 15th May 2018. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:41, 15 November 2017 (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.

@Yunshui: You are calculating six month from November but I have been blocked since September. Can I ask for unblock in May 2018? Kumargargavinash (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask... Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

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).

Kumargargavinash (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 six month since I am not editing wikipedia. Now I have read the policies and conflict of interest guideline. Since I was new to Wikipedia and didn't knew that which media or article is appropriate for Wikipedia. My edits was inappropriate because it shows deep interest of only mine in the subject or topic compared to others. I am accepting my mistake and promise you that I will not do such type of edits in future

Decline reason:

Improbable denial of sockpuppetry per Yunshui below. In the unlikely case that the explanation about using a friend's mobile to request unblock is true, there would still be a WP:MEAT situation, which comes to the same thing. Bishonen | talk 06:31, 24 July 2018 (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.

@SpacemanSpiff: Please review my unblock request! Kumargargavinash (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after you were blocked last September, a new account User:ADPS was created and began editing Shatrughan Tiwari, an article that you created and which you had edited heavily. The unblock request above was made from the same IP address that ADPS has been using as recently as two days ago. Care to explain that? Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: Of course, I can explain. I know the account ADPS. It is of a friend of mine. I don't know exactly when he created that account but yes, only after I told him that I have been blocked on wikipedia for creating ExamFear so no longer I will able to edit Shatrughan Tiwari (Shatrughan Tiwari is MLA of our area). So he created his account on his PC and told me that he is editing Shatrughan Tiwari by ADPS account.

Recently he said me that he is going to create an article on National Testing Agency on Wikipedia. Thought came in mind to check whether I have unblocked or will have to request to unblock So I took his mobile and logged in my own account and thereafter requested a fresh Unblock request. I don't know anything more abour when he logged his account or else. Now this message I am typing by my own mobile (not his; that time my phone was running out of battery to I asked him to check my account on his phone). Kumargargavinash (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser needed This all sounds highly improbable but I should welcome a CU analysis, please. Just Chilling (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling: Yunshui has already done the analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I created those articles because at that time I had mentality that everything that exist should be on Wikipedia. I had no knowledge of Wikipedia's notability guidelines or any other policies. I ignored warnings and kept editing. When I was blocked, I created User:ADPS thinking that I will not do anything against polices on this account and I was doing good but again I was blocked for sockpuppetry. I didn't know that creating a new account by a blocked user is against the policy. Yes, I lied that User:ADPS was not mine (poor me). Now I can promise that I will try to not do anything of my interest that is against the policies and will help in improving Wikipedia. Kumargargavinash (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hi Kumargargavinash,

I would have copied your appeal to WP:AN for community review. However:

It does not address the WP:PAID / WP:COI concern that also led to your block. A new appeal should explain: What was the motivation for writing about these topics?
Writing about non-notable topics is not necessarily "advertising". Why did your efforts lead to an "advertising" block?
The appeal text refers to "those articles". Your appeal will be copied to WP:AN, where noone knows which articles you are talking about. You'll need to be more precise.

The request can not be properly answered before these points are honestly addressed. In its current form, I see no chance for the appeal to be accepted; you seem to withhold the most important information.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I created Pt. Ramprakash Mishra, Roshni Mukherjee and Exam Fear. "Exam Fear" is an educational YouTube channel and I was studying there. "Roshni Mukherjee" is the teacher (and founder) of the channel so she was teaching me. "Pt. Ramprakash Mishra" is my teacher. Since I had no knowledge of notability guidelines so I created each page. I think this is the case of WP:COI. I can confidently say that I was not paid in any way and it is not the case of WP:PAID. * If writing about those topics are not "advertising" then I am not completely sure that why it leaded to "advertising" block. Maybe it is because of I created Shatrughan Tiwari and did not follow NPOV guidelines and it was written like an "advertisement" * When I was blocked, I created User:ADPS thinking that I will not do anything against polices on this account and I was doing good. I possibly didn't made any edit that violate the polices but again I was blocked for sockpuppetry. I didn't know that creating a new account by a blocked user is against the policy. Yes, I lied that User:ADPS was not mine (poor me). Now I can promise that I will try to not do anything of my interest that is against the policies and will help in improving Wikipedia. Kumargargavinash (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thanks for your honesty. However, you worked hard to prove we cannot trust your word and to destroy the community's faith in you. Your best bet is to wait six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you'll need to explain how you've changed so we can trust you again. Yamla (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2020 (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.

@Yamla: Please check, I've sent you an e-mail. Kumargargavinash (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]