|
Hi Agrawal.akshay98! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC) |
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
RadioFan (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)If you do not know what you are doing, and you clearly do not with templates, please do not move them to the Template: namespace Instead please ask for help. I have tidied most of this mess up for you. Please note that competence is required, and that help is always available by using ((Helpme)) Fiddle Faddle 13:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Do not move templates to and form the Template: and Draft: namespaces just because you feel like it. If and when it is accepted the redirect you created would need to be deleted anyway. All you are doing is making work for people. The Template: namespace one was deleted because the rules say it should have been Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you have created few to-do pages within article talk pages. While its good to have a to-do list, I fail to understand why a separate page has been created for it?! You could simple include the list on article's talk page itself. Please refrain from creating such multiple short-duration usability pages. You have created Talk:Indian Institute of Technology Bombay/to do, Talk:National Institute of Design/to do, Talk:Filmfare Award for Best Director/to do, Talk:S. S. Rajamouli/to do , and probably more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
/wiae ★ /tlk 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
LaMona (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Anonymousbananas (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) 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 sock puppet, 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC) |
Agrawal.akshay98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Vanjagenije (talk · contribs), I plead that I should be unblocked on the grouds that * I haven't actually done anything of what constitutes Wikipedia SockPuppetry Policy ** I havent made problematic IP edits ** I havent tried to skew opinion/consensus ** I havent "Piggybacked" ** Havent used 'Sleeper Accounts' to do any of the above ** Havent used an alternate account. * The conditions used to open the investigation are seemingly harmless. Classfever was approved by a wiki reviewer. Proof of that is on the talk page. And Draft:Akshay Agrawal is simply a draft which was rejected and remains so. The notable alumni addition was done after the Classfever article approval thinking that that is notability enough; and there was one other person who i had added and had reffed so. * I understand that the Editor Interaction Analyzer and User Compare report show the common edited pages. Please go through the edits made by each account and you will see that there is no pattern and nothing to support that same edits were made again 'by exploiting multiple accounts'. * I have been a constructive and non-disruptive Wiki contributer. ** I have created 4 articles and 2 templates ** Have been approved as an AWB user ** I have 808 edits out of which only 9 have been ever deleted.
I REQUEST you to PLEASE unblock me. You can monitor my activities if you wish. If there are things you wouldnt want me to do, pl let me know and i will ensure they arent done. I personally believe a warning is a better teacher than throwing the kid out of the house. By blocking me, youre throeing me out of the house, without giving me a chance to improve or even telling me where exactly I made a mistake. If not completely unblock, pl reduce the block to some resonably short period of time? Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You'll have a better chance of being unblocked (or of having the block duration reduced) if you make the unblock request from your original account. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
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.
Agrawal.akshay98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), I dont understand what you're saying. This is the only account I have. AnonymousBananas is not me and was never me. I took the pain of check its edit history and if you go through mine, you will see that there is nothing that ties us together. I had even put up what i intend to edit next on my user page. There is some gap which i am unable to grasp. For the record, I am not AnonymousBananas sockpuppet. How can i appeal this from that account? Pl dont block my right to edit talk pages too yet, i'd like to talk about this and (hopefully) be unblocked or at least reduce my block time. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk)
Decline reason:
I have reached the same conclusion as the fellow reviewing admins, after comparing contributions from all accounts. In light of this and in consideration of the CheckUser block confirmation, this request has been declined. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
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.
Agrawal.akshay98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), Vanjagenije (talk · contribs), Ponyo (talk · contribs), Guys, lets for a moment assume that I am the same person as the other accounts. Those account made malicious edits with malicious intent. This one has nothing but contributed in good faith. I am now adhering to wiki policy and have understood how wiki works and how i can helpful without being problematic, youre still gonna block me? by this metric youre saying I can never contribute to wiki ever again? I find it slightly unfair because youre saying that some account using the country's largest ISP (MTNL) from one of the most populated cities in the country (Mumbai) is me? I learnt my lesson. I am sorry. More than my words, my edit history on account says that. I am REQUESTING/BEGGING you to tell me what it will take me to allow to edit Wiki again. Another account ? Undertaking that I wont do certain activities ever again ? What is it that will simply allow me to edit and contribute to wiki preferably under this very account? Pl dont block my talk page edit rights. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Admitting to the sockpuppetry is a good start, however you should make any further unblock requests under the main account name. Offhand I have to say that I'm very concerned that you had to be forced to admit the truth, as someone who is truly repentant would have confessed this from the start. Also concerning is that last month you had somewhat of a run-in with FiddleFaddle, where you apparently accused him of being rude for trying to correct some mistakes you made and where you disregarded advice. What I'm worried about is that if you are unblocked, you will continue to engage in problematic behaviors since you still had issues with editing as recently as last month and that you're only confessing to some of the things you've done after it became clear that none of the prior editors believed that you were unrelated. My personal advice would be to take some time off of Wikipedia and come back in at least 6 months and try for an unblock under the main account name. I just don't think that we can really trust you to make good editing choices at this point in time, given that this account has at least some history of editing issues and you had to be forced to confess to the sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
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.
B. Maybe you're right, the truth WILL solve this. I accept that I was all those users. I wont insult you by lying any further. However, I was 'earnest in saying that i've learnt my lesson and it wont happen again. I only lied because i really really learnt my lesson and really really want to continue contributing to wiki'. If you used that to lure me in and you're gonna completely block me, at least let me know how I can get back to editing. I started off as a Wiki editor who would personally get offended when my edits were undone or when users like 'Sitush' wouldnt agree with me. I failed to see they were more experienced and knew what they were doing. However, they too werent very nice to me when I asked "Why not?". Also, though I still dont find anything wrong in creating and submitting drafts for Classfever and Akshay Agrawal, I know that me trying to spam wiki with links to 'Classfever' was wrong ( Which I have NOT done with this account ). What im tryin go tsay is, whatever mistakes i made with those account, i havent made this time. Upasa98 was used to skew consensus. 'Parthiv' Shah was up for deletion. I tried to save it, and it could have been, for the guy is truly notable in th eIndian Design space, but i didnt even attempt to skew consensus becaus ei have learnt that thats a bad thing. i spent a few hours reffing various rating sites to 'S.S. Rajamouli' article in the critical reception, but someone removed all that and siad "IMDb only pls" me on the other accounts would have lost it. But this time i didnt. In Short, yes it was me previously. But 'I have learnt Wiki (finally)'. Pl unblock me. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Agrawal.akshay98. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)