User talk:Chintu6

July 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socking[edit]

Unless you want a permaban I would suggest taking a 48 hours rest and then try to win by argument. Socking and edit warring will just get you a longer blox=ck.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2018 (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).

Chintu6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It all started when I expanded an existing page Ghazwatul Hind in July 2018 first created by User:Sharif Uddin in November 2014 which had a redirect to Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent since the former was very brief and without trusted sources. I expanded the article Ghazwatul Hind greatly and I thought the redirect was now unnecessary and a separate page may be allotted. However, some user(s) decided to not to remove the redirect. I couldn't understand why. So I decided to undo the redirect a couple of times (thinking it was spam/vandalism). Thus my account was blocked. However, I later came to know that the article had been nominated for deletion back in 2014, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghazwatul Hind when it was not well written and had just a few lines. So please unblock my account, as the user(s) have prevailed in redirecting Ghazwatul Hind to Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. I have no other request.

Decline reason:

This does not address your violation of WP:SOCK. Additionally, there's no point talking about the actions of other users as this is irrelevant. See WP:GAB to understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 17:26, 19 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.

I created some accounts to back my edits thinking that the other user(s) were spam or biased. I will not do this in future.

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).

Chintu6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have now explained the reason for violation of WP:SOCK in above comment (just above this box). I have also been a nice editor if you look at my past contributions.

Decline reason:

This could have been a bit of an explanation for one episode of socking, however after your first sockpuppet was identified and blocked, you repeated the same two more times, now knowing well that this is against our rules and that we block for that. That is a willful and persistent violation which we must take seriously. You might want to take the standard offer. Max Semenik (talk) 06:38, 20 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.

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).

Chintu6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I repeated the same two more times not to evade block, but I forgot the password of one (at home) and created another account on mobile device (at office) not knowing whether first was blocked (as I was relatively naive to all these things). AND THEY WERE ONLY USED ON TALK PAGES TO DISCUSS/ APPEAL THE REDIRECT. I swear this is truth. I can easily create more accounts as mobile IP addresses are dynamic, but I chose the good way. Now please be a good person and not indulge in tyranny too much.

Decline reason:

You were using three accounts and two anonymous IPs to evade your block. You were using sockpuppets to make disruptive edits. You were also lying in your unblock requests. Such behavior is really below every expectation. And, now you threat to continue socking if we do not unblock you. That's just too much. WP:Standard offer the most you can get. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:04, 22 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.

This is simply not true. For example, see this edit, which was not to a talk page. I'm revoking talk page access for six months, because that's the soonest you can apply under WP:SO. Note that any further block evasion, even once, may lead to a permanent ban due to your repeated violations of WP:BLOCK; see WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2018 (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).

Chintu6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Admin, I am an unsophisticated person and didn't even know about things like sockpuppet etc. Now I have read these things thoroughly and now I understand what happened. I just thought of wikipedia like a facebook, and so I was doing it quite unseriously. So I request to give me another chance. This six months block is way too much. (Note: The user who started all this edit war is also blocked but he has been unblocked multiple times in the past, while this is my first unblock request ever.

Decline reason:

You may not have known about the multiple accounts policy initially, but you clearly knew about it when you created your subsequent accounts. For this, plus the reasons given below, I am declining this appeal. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:22, 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.

I would suggest declining this request even if there is nothing like WP:NOTTHEM. "The user who started all this edit war" was only you, not My Lord. Even if you are completely innocent and treats the restoration of the redirect as edit warring then still the history of the article shows that Satpal Dandiwal was the one who first redirected the article,[1] and Onel5969 reverted you at least 4 times. You can't blame only one user only because he is blocked for the reasons that doesn't involve you. Lorstaking (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... Actually it takes some experience to know Wikipedia rules. Being a novice, I am trying to learn the different technical terms. In future, I shalll seek to resolve the dispute through the proper route. 🙂

I've revoked your access to this page. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Chintu6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22165 was submitted on Jul 24, 2018 14:57:51. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

This user has continued to engage in block evasion. I am upgrading this to a ban, as per WP:3X. No admin may unblock this user without community consensus. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Caller-to-Islam.gif[edit]

The file File:Caller-to-Islam.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused image of unclear possible use.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kitab-al-fitan.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kitab-al-fitan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 00:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]