User talk:Ultimate survi

Welcome

Hello, Ultimate survi, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Talk

Hi. Apolgies for deleting your edit request when I reverted your blanking of the rest of the page (which I presume was accidental). I was about to reinstate it, but I see you already did that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my account Ultimate survi (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gwalior. Stop changing sourced population figures int eh articles. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my account Ultimate survi (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accounts can not be deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So unblock me to delete my two accounts Ultimate survi (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accounts can not be deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me to close my two accounts and use only this one to contribute Ultimate survi (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That will be up to the reviewing admin to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If have participated on the talk to seek consensus and I am not trying to hide it,I just want to contribute with reliable source so i want to delete it. And if you're talking about my approach in future so I have already apologize and promise to not do it again Ultimate survi (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Ultimate survi (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. only (talk) 19:23, 20 September 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.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked by Wikipedia volunteer for sock puppetry but I really don't that using more than one account is not in the Wikipedia policy but now unfortunately I can't do anything about it so the only thing I can do is just to promise that I never do it again. And I apologize for doing it and I also request you to unblock me so I can contribute to the page which needed to be improved.

Ultimate survi (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is actually clear that you knew about the policies and were looking to bypass all that through the use of multiple accounts, —SpacemanSpiff 00:40, 22 September 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.

The problem is not just the simple act of misusing multiple accounts. You were using User:Liger1203, User:Sphinx120, User:Ultimate survi and editing logged out. With these, you repeatedly made unsourced and/or improperly sourced caste-related edits to Banaphar, Alha and Udal of Mahoba, including faking sources. And you made multiple inadequate edit requests on the talk pages which were declined (and which you have subsequently tried to hide). You were told (by me) multiple times to discuss your desired changes on the relevant talk pages and seek consensus, and I also explained the special importance of reliable sources and consensus when it comes to caste-related topics. You totally ignored all of this, and simply kept on trying to push your changes without discussion and without consensus. I would strongly oppose any unblock request that does not properly address all of these things, or which does not convincingly explain how you would change your approach in future if unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot User:Mega flames. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If have participated on the talk to seek consensus and I am not trying to hide it,I just want to contribute with reliable source so i want to delete it. And if you're talking about my approach in future so I have already apologize and promise to not do it again. Ultimate survi (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Show us where you started a discussion of the source you object to and the sources you tried to use to replace it, and where you sought a consensus? Give us a diff, or just a link to any discussion you started. Just one. And no, you have not said anything about how you will change your approach to discussion and consensus - all you have promised is that you will not use multiple accounts any more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have participate on all three you have to check first and you also reply me. Blame me only what I have done not on what you want Ultimate survi (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have made multiple edit requests at times when the articles were protected, yes, but every one was declined. You then went on to make the changes yourself regardless, once the protection had expired - repeatedly, using different accounts. That is *not* discussing and seeking consensus. And yes, I have responded to at least one of your requests, (here). That was to point out the problems with your approach to sourcing, and most definitely *did not* represent a consensus for you to make the change. Anyway, I'll leave it for the next reviewing admin now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,thank you Ultimate survi (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, my two unblock request is declined by the administrators with the reason that I know about the Wikipedia policy or I intentionally do it. And that is not true,I really don't know about Wikipedia policy or sock puppetry.I get to know about it after I get block ed, but yeah unintentionally I do it something wrong and I'm really sad for it. I apologize for what I have done and I assured you that if I get unblocked I will never do it again ( I will always follow Wikipedia policy and I will not use more than one account).I want to contribute to Wikipedia because I enjoy it and like to contribute in that articles which I have some knowledge of. If I get unblocked I will start from beginning and edit articles with valid source or by seek consensus by volunteers. And I again apologize for the problem I create and I promise you that I will always follow Wikipedia policy. Because I get to know about Wikipedia policy while I am blocked. So please unblock me.

Decline reason:

Please see WP:SOCKBLOCK for guidance on how to appeal a block for sock puppetry. Note also that you will likely lose access to your talk page if the next unblock request is declined. My advice is "don't act hastily". RegentsPark (comment) 12:17, 22 September 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.

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ultimate survi, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]