User talk:Vengeance 01

Welcome!

Hello, Vengeance 01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Melbourne Cricket Ground did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! 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 need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sweat welcome HiLo48, I add the source in MCG article.Vengeance 01 (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It still makes no sense to say a pitch newly created every year has long term characteristics. Please go to the article's Talk page and explain how it can make sense. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, HiLo48 Should we atleast add about drop-in pitches used at MCG since 1996, Also the content which i added was about basic nature of surface over the years like the WACA is known to be historically Quick and bouncy. Anyway can we get a Consensus on this about adding drop-in nature of pitch since last 20 odd years ? Vengeance 01 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading further, I noticed that the drop in pitches are already mentioned in the Cricket uses sub-section further on in the article, so I removed your addition. Please don't discuss this any more here. Such discussion belongs on the article's Talk page where all interested editors are likely to see it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: Ok,no problem

Medical statements need reliable sources

Hello there. I have reverted your changes to coconut oil because they were completely devoid of citations to reliable sources, and the link you added at the end is to a book that doesn't qualify as a reliable source for the medical claims you made. See WP:MEDRS to understand better what is required for making any statements about medicine or health risks on Wikipedia. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same for castor oil and coconut. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Anachronist Vengeance 01 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhaji and Shivaji images

The image of Sambhaji which you replaced was one of the few representations of him from near his lifetime. It is believed to have been painted by his own subjects, the Marathas of the Deccan, and uses the art styles popular during the 17th century which he himself may have been familiar with.[1] The image of Shivaji was similarly from the Deccan and at the latest, was painted 7 years after his death in 1680.[2] In contrast, the images you've been adding are modern, idealised constructions created centuries after the deaths of the Emperors and have nothing to suggest that they are accurate representations.
Alivardi (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alivardi, I didn't said that they are accurate representations, obviously its not possible to have accurate or exact representations of historical subjects especially of those who lived over 400 years back. I added modern depictions (not modern though) just for better infobox as the paintings and statues i add on both those articles looks far better than existing ones especially staue of Sambhaji. I can agree with you on Shivaji but not for Sambhaji, clearly the statue looks better for infobox. Also in those times paintings weren't upto the mark compared to recent times after World War II or even during times of Britishers.
Anyway, As you are a senior editor ultimately your opinion will prevail but i still feel strongly that in case of Sambhaji we should go with the statue. Thanks Vengeance 01 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The primary purpose of an infobox image isn't to be decorative, but rather to be significant and relevant. The image of Sambhaji was made by his own people, during or soon after his reign, therefore fulfilling this criteria. For similar reasons, in the article for Charlemagne, the primary image is an unassuming coin minted during his reign, as opposed to this far more impressive and famous equestrian statue. (And for what it's worth, I've always believed that India has a long and distinguished artistic heritage that any Indian could be proud of.)
Alivardi (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alivardi, I didn't questioned artistic heritage of India but just elaborate one thing that we should rather go for Modern Statue instead of Old paintings. I still stick to that if u can build a consensus we should add Statue of Sambhaji in infobox and put the painting in Early life section or any other section, Shouldn't We ???
As for Charlemagne, I don't know much about him, So better I shouldn't add my personal commentary and to be fair I wasn't a history student my specialization area is about Chemistry,Biology and to an extent Physics too, Please check my edit history for same. But I came from Maharashtra so I tried to improve articles
Of Shivaji and Sambhaji in my limited capacity.
As for your reasoning Shouldn't this be applied to famous Rajput kings too Why only to our Maratha rulers ??? As I noticed that in infobox of Rajput rulers like Prithviraj Chauhan, Maharana Pratap,Rana Sanga in all those cases their statues are preferred over Paintings. I won't go in detail as I am not knowledgeable in history and especially of North Indians like Rajputs and other ethnic groups, not at all.
I still think if we can build consensus only in case of Sambhaji As I Strongly believe we should go with Statue in infobox and his contemporary depection in other sections, Can We ??? Take it as a Request from a Novice editor to an Veteran Editor and build a consensus. Cheers and have fun Vengeance 01 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably there's already a consensus for the painting to remain, since it's been the infobox image for 7 years and you're the first editor who's wanted to change it. However, if you did want to see if other editors agree with you, I recommend you open a new discussion on the article talk page and argue your case there. (And yes, I would argue the same standard be held with the Rajput pages you mentioned, though I would note that those are lower-quality articles and not particularly good examples.)
Alivardi (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As of now Alivardi, I moved the 17th century description to the Accession section of article, Also sources you added in first reply about the paintings were from blogs,but blogs can't be considered as reliable sources. There isn't any discussion on
article talk page about infobox image. I tried to work out a way so that modern and more famous depiction should be in Infobox while old depictions shifted to other notable section of article. Anyway what do you meant by lower-quality articles ???, Again If you want to discuss about history of Shivaji and Sambhaji or those three Rajput rulers (Prithviraj Chauhan ,Rana Sangram and Rana Pratap) in detail, Discuss with other editors on their talk pages as I am not knowledgeable about the same, Thanks. Vengeance 01 (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogs are considered reliable sources if they are written by a professional. The blog which I had linked to was that of the British Library, which owns the image in question, with that specific post having been written by the curator there.
  • My advice to you had been to post a message on the article talkpage to see if there is any support for your proposed change, since as of now, you appear to be the only person in the last 7 years who believed one was necessary.
    Alivardi (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alivardi, I tried to figure out best possible way to keep both the edits. The more famous one in infobox and 17th century one in the Accesion section of article which is also an important sub-section but again you reverted it. I think that only we both are having a dispute over that part if my edit would have been disruptive or other editors would have a problem with it they would have revert it immediately. Thats why i ask you politely to have a consensus so that we can keep modern depiction in infobox and move the old one to other notable section of article. I don't think If I post it on article talk page anyone will take it seriously because it's just a minor editor (especially in case of historical subject who lived 400 years back). I still think this is best possible way to put his Modern and famous depiction in infobox and move 17th century painting in other section of article. Thank you. Vengeance 01 (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what more you want me to say. I've already said that the purpose of an infobox image isn't to be decorative, but to be significant and relevant; a nameless modern statue with an idealised representation of Sambhaji doesn't fulfil this. I've previously given an example of a higher-quality article which does fulfil this requirement; you don't have to be knowledgeable about the subject to understand this, for these are general standards across Wikipedia. It's why the image for Vallabhbhai Patel isn't the Statue of Unity, or for Admiral Nelson it isn't Nelson's Column.
But Wikipedia is built on consensus and the community could believe different here. This is why I advised you to open a talk page discussion. Maybe you won't get any response, but it won't be because you're new. From my experience, if an editor believes an action is correct, there'll be no reason for them to be bothered by the experience of the person proposing it.
Alivardi (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, to let another user know you've replied, use this template at the beginning of your message:
{{reply to|Username}}
Alivardi (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alivardi: Best solution is to bring a moderator. Anyway i will brought my proposed changes on Sambhaji talk page for a healthy discussion. Vengeance 01 (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks a bunch mate. Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Fylindfotberserk 😊. Vengeance 01 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Control copyright icon Hello Vengeance 01! Your additions to Coconut have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Diannaa I got it and will make sure to respect Wikipedia policies don't worry. Vengeance 01 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious thing. I have had to revert more of your edits due to copyright violations. Do that again, and I will have no choice but to block your account. So far, you aren't improving the encyclopedia, you are making messes for others to clean up. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist, I have been recently notified on the same about Wikipedia Policy on Copyright violations, i will make sure to follow the policies about copyright content. Anyway i don't just copy the content from other enclyopedia or blogs it's just this are my area of specialization but in future i will do a lengthy research on any topic before adding content.~ Vengeance 01 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits that I reverted were verbatim copies from pages of other sites. After being warned, you should have made an effort to revert your own edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again Anachronist I wasn't aware about Wikipedia policy of copyright violation. Anyway i can guarantee in future there won't be such disruptions, I will add content from scholary books on topic. But please don't say i mess up wikipedia infact most of my edits are about welcoming new editors on wikipedia, Alerts on controversial topics and so on.- Vengeance 01 (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff, If that is the case i wont be giving discretionary sanctions anymore,i just thought it's important to let other editors know about discretionary sanctions in controversial topics. Anyway,Can I Welcome other editors on Wikipeda atleast ???? Vengeance 01 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you have created messes in article space. Most of your edits there have had to be reverted. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits ??? Can you please explain, i will revert them myself Vengeance 01 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already spent a good deal of time doing so. It's done. You can view my contribution history if you like. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vengeance 01 (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you here to contribute to building an encyclopaedia?

It doesn't appear that you're here to contribute to building an encyclopaedia, rather here to just push boundaries. You were just given some advice, that youdeleted and you go straight ahead with another form of disruption by going ahead and adding duplicate welcome templates to talk pages. It's obvious that you're not some newbie trying out things. —SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff, I reverted those edits because they weren't neccesary anymore as i got it about copyright rules of wikipedia in adding content, Do you have a problem in me posting welcome messages for other editors, Too ????? Better i myself stop editing enclyopedia further as i have been targeted badly by you continously. Vengeance 01 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff, I reverted all my edits and I am indeed here to improve enclyopedia otherwise i wouldn't have been welcoming other editors and would have just vandalise pages. Thanks for this Rude and arrogant behaviour and those templates weren't duplicate I just like to welcome other editors. Vengeance 01 (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff, Anyway I am indeed a newbie (270 odd edits old) trying to improve content on enclyopedia. Thanks - Vengeance 01 (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi there! Thanks for notifying me about the policy changes. SSG123 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert to Nagaraja Cholan MA, MLA

Hello, Vengeance 01. I noticed that in your edit summary of your recent revert to Nagaraja Cholan MA, MLA (namely this edit) you reverted with the reason "Vandalism (RW 16)" linking to the WP:RW page. I'd like to know why you linked to the RedWarn page while obviously not using RedWarn, since that would clear up a bit of confusion around the edits. Thank you. ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 11:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the matter?

Didn’t see that you are deleting informations as you did to Mohammad Rizwan. Stop doing it! Don’t think that you have become a senior editor that deletes informations. Just edit. You don’t need to act like a senior editor. There are also many other senior editors out there to see which information is correct and which are useless. So please. Don’t delete info’s on articles like Mohammad Rizwan. You are engaging in a edit war. So it’s a warning. Cricketing edits (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cricketing edits:, Well fact of the matter is that you still can't get a simple thing which I explained in edit summaries twice now. The content you want to add that he captains Multan Sultan team in PSL is already present just in next section. So it's clearly a case of WP:DS. I don't think it need to be mentioned twice that he captains particular team. Additionally it's not necessary to be a senior editor to clean Wikipedia, anyone can. Vengeance 01 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha: To be fair dear I am not very knowledgeable about Politics of Bihar in recent times (last 15-20 odd years). However, i noticed through your edit history that you have a mastery on this particular topic and about that particular individual (Lalu Prasad Yadav), so it will more fruitful to discuss with contributors who are knowledgeable over this particular subject. Thanks Vengeance 01 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian journalists

Information icon Hello. Your recent edit to List of Indian journalists appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for such important advice and being so kind. You are a jolly editor who is welcoming new editors and always take the high road. Forever thankful. Ravenshfire (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenshfire: Thank you very much. Happy editing and again welcome to this free Enclyopedia. Vengeance 01 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts

Hi Vengeance 01, I noticed that you placed discretionary sanctions alerts on several user talk pages without substituting the template according to the documentation in T:DSA § Usage. For example, although the message in Special:Diff/1006493060 was correct, the edit did not get tracked in the tag system because the {{Ds/alert}} template was not substituted. In the future, please be sure to substitute the template: e.g. {{subst:alert|ipa|~~~~}} will generate a discretionary sanctions alert for the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area. Doing it this way allows the alerts to be tracked. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 23:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Fixed link to Wikipedia:Tags. — Newslinger talk 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: Ok I got your point. Vengeance 01 (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smith

Can you revert to this version please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Smith_(cricketer)&oldid=1009562900

DiamondIIIXX (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purvanchal Expressway

Hello, I removed some of the Project status updates as those seem to me not significant anymore. It was neither a major or minor milestone nor adding many values to the project status updates when the project is about to be completed. Bijgupt (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I have been following your edits and your hard work certainly deserves a lot of praise.

Oz Hass (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oz Hass: Thank you very much and happy editing !

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ramprakash1000 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramprakash Diwedi. 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 ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me

Hii, I have been recently blocked for being a sockpuppeet of Ramprakash but seriously speaking i dont even know who the fuck this guy is ???? I only contribute in positive manner, Please do a check user again this block is not justified at all. Its a humble request to do a checkuser again as this is my only account and i am not sockpuppet of any user. Please do a check user again and unblock my account. Seriously speaking i don't even know this guy, this block is completly unjustified Sir please rethink and do a checkuser i am not doing any kind of Sockpuppetry or even meatpuppetry on Wikipedia. Vengeance 01 (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who blocked you, Mz7, is a checkuser. If you want to be unblocked, you need to follow the instructions in your block message to appeal the block, but you will need to explain the checkuser confirmations of your use of multiple accounts, as shown in the sockpuppet investigation. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Nonsense your method is fraud just like you guys are, I indeed copied content from that User at Shekar Gupta article but till then he wasn't a blocked user, If he would have been blocked by then, I would not have copied his content, Check his interset are and my contribution area. The Cu also mentioned same geolocations not confirmed sockaccounts. Its a request to rethink this ban of being a sockpuppet of someone whom i dont even know.Vengeance 01 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further this all investigations seems fraud to me, Please rethink the block i am not related to that user at all. Vengeance 01 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This is one more appeal as i have been blocked for being a sockpuppet of Rampraksh 1000 on basis of a fraud investigation by checkuser, Please rethink this unjustified ban, I indeed copy content from that user but till then he wasn't blocked, Check his interset area, Editing style and then Check my interset area Infact after i was warned i never used copyright content at all again, I mostly update Cricket articles, Revert Vandalism like i did at Scroll.in twice. I dont operate multiple accounts in an abusive manner and as far being similar to accused user, Please do a carefull inspection again being honest i don't know who this user is. This block is not neccesary and justified too, Take your time, Thank you. Vengeance 01 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an administrator to see your appeal, you must follow the instructions. Specifially, use the {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} template. I am not a checkuser. A checkuser would have to evaluate your appeal. That won't happen unless you do it right. Also be careful about throwing accusations around, as you did so in your last couple of comments. Doing so will likely get your talk page access revoked as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7:, Thank you dear for atleast accepting the fact that i was wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of Rampraksh diwedi and Rampraksh 1000 , As for this accounts I indeed agree that some of them were indeed created by me (not for disruption),although in some cases there can be (sincere appology for that), I thought that we can use more than 1 account on Wikipedia but as u said i understand completely that even using more than one account for any purpose is wrong. But the person whom i have been accused as sockpuppet of is completly fraud. If u wants to you can indeed let all this accounts blocked (although, some aren't me), but please dont block my original account which is Vengeance 01. Please rethink about this indefinate ban as it is not justified at all, i u want to u can indeed block me for a week to teach me a lesson for not using more than one accounts but more than these won't be justified at all. Again i was wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of Rampraksh 1000, Please rethink about this block and unblock me as i understand the reason for getting blocked and wont repeat it in future. Vengeance 01 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: Please do something soon, I already gave a honest explaination about these accounts (although all aren't created by me, and sockpuppet of Ramprakash 1000 is absolutely unjustified and fasle accusations). Vengeance 01 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance 01, thank you for acknowledging that at least some of these accounts are yours. I'm afraid, however, that I'm not convinced by your explanation. In my view, all four of the accounts I listed above were operated by you, and you have indeed used them for clearly deceptive purposes. For example, on the article Steve Smith (cricketer), you used the Oz Hass account to make an edit [3], and after it was reverted, you used the CricsDecoder account to make another edit, as if it were a different person [4], and then you used the Vengeance 01 to revert your CricsDecoder edits [5]. In another recent instance, I noticed that you made a disruptive edit to an article while logged out, then logged in to use your account to revert the edit. Because you have not been forthcoming about your misuse of multiple accounts, I will not be unblocking you. You are welcome to appeal your block to another checkuser/administrator as Anachronist mentioned by adding the following code below: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: I don't know what more you want me to you say ???? I indeed agree that i was completly wrong in creating other accounts but i still stick that all these 4 accounts arent operated by me, If that would have been the case i would have log in respective accounts and would have appealed for unblock. Please Check edit history of these users atleast last 2 and see my Edit history, Contributions there is a day-light difference. Anyway i understand that i shouldn't have create other accounts and i indeed sincerely appologize for the same. But again indefinate ban is not jutified at all, I am all for a 1 week ban for my mistake. Its my request to unblock me and give me one last chance and if any disruptions occurs in the future then i have no problem in an indefinate ban. But Please for now consider unblocking my account as i understand the reason and wont repeat this in future. Vengeance 01 (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2021 (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).

Vengeance 01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Recently a Check user has blocked me for using more than 1 accounts which i indeed agree that i operated more than 1 account and in some cases i indeed cause some disruptive edits which i shouldn't have done. But overall most of my contributions were constructive like updating Cricket related articles regularly, reverting unsourced content from articles. I agree that using more than one account is wrong but it's my humble request to give me one more chance by unblocking my account and in future, If I cause any kind of disruption i wont have a problem in indefinate block. But as of now i don't think indefinate ban is neccesary or justified as I understood the reason for the block and won't repeat these or any kind of disruption in the future. Please unblock my account or reduce the indefinate block to a week, I can assure you to not use more than one account in future again for disruption and will consider only constructive edits or contributions. Vengeance 01 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As I had posted here last month, I'm convinced that this is not your first account and also that Oshwah hasn't unearthed all the other socks as CU can only do so much. Looking deeper now, you also appear to be linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aristocratic 536. From the beginning you've been going on with this borderline disruption and now it's shown that you've been doing it with multiple accounts and just wasting community time. —SpacemanSpiff 11:16, 13 March 2021 (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.

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for the kitten! SSG123 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]