User talk:91.212.53.253

September 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm DBigXray. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Sindhudesh. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 08:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Muttahida Qaumi Movement, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Muttahida Qaumi Movement, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours

...for disruptive editing and canvassing. If I see you canvas en masse again, I'll give this IP a nice long block period. You aren't helping.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which disruptive edit did I do? Please explain, I am not an experienced Wikipedia user and just asked some experienced users to help protect the article? How is this unhelpful? I used the talk page too and didn`t do any disruptive editing for which you blocked me. Very sad 91.212.53.253 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You blind? I just told you and the fact that you don't see it and don't think that you did anything wrong is a good reason for you to be blocked. I protected it yesterday so nothing in your canvassing is helpful at all.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see that moderators on Wikipedia would use such language and behaviour, no I am not blind. The reason you gave for blocking me is disruptive editing and canvassing whereas I didn`t do any edit in an article in the last 24 hours, I only used the talk page today in which I stated my point of view so blocking me for disruptive editing didn`t make any sense. Secondly, you accused me of canvassing when the only thing I did was to reach out to a few experienced Wikipedia users from whom I requested protection for JF17 Thunder article for removing neutral unbiased international sources and pushing in a specified POV. I am an inexperienced Wikipedia user and though its best to ask experienced Wiki users for help. With all due respect, I still see your actions as totally unjustified. 91.212.53.253 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting 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).

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

Request reason:

Unfairly being blocked for something I didn`t do, I didn`t do any disruptive editing. I just asked some experienced users to help protect an article which was called unhelpful, I even used the talk page rather than doing any disruptive editing. 91.212.53.253 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you don't concede that you did anything wrong, there is no cause to unblock you at this time. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 10 March 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.

Requesting 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).

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

Request reason:

Please try to understand my point, doesn`t disruptive editing imply that you keep editing an article involving yourself in an edit war with others? If so then I didn`t edit an article today, there is just one article which I edited yesterday, I am being accused of canvassing but in my defence that the intention wasn`t something wrong, yesterday too I reached out to another senior member Nigel requesting him for protection on an article in which I believed a specified POV was being pushed in, I thought its best to ask senior members for protection on article, as I wasn`t sure how to do that myself. 91.212.53.253 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 12:21, 11 March 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.

March 2019

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 years for block evasion.
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 ~~~~}}.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
  • I figured out who this is. A couple of accounts were blocked in January 2016 and a couple more in March 2016. Long block given to this IP and may need to revisit the /24 range of "The Petroleum Institute" proxy. Any checkuser may see the "02:47, March 11, 2019" entry for me in the cu log to see who this is and there is a SPI for them. No one from these addresses should be editing anything to do with India-Pakistan issues.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]