User talk:Kthxbay

Vandalism[edit]

Hi Kthxbay, I want to know why editing Kishore Kumar can cause vandalism and my edit not being constructive. I'm surprised to learn more about it. I'm sorry for doing this, I just didn't know about that, neither it showed on my notification page. So if you know that, you can put a notification at my page instead of your page, that way I could know what I shouldn't edit. Thank you. We are the Great (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are the Great, the material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source which was not there [1] in case of your edits. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct. Please read WP:NOTTRUTH. Kthxbay (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. IanDBeacon (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Momina Mustehsan[edit]

Hi Kthxbay. Since you restored the information, could you take some time to rewrite it so the meaning is clear and the tone appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article about Mustehsan? Thanks. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Ko Korina (remake)[edit]

I was wondering how long it would take for the remake "controversy" (sic) to make it into the article. LOL. But being serious, thank you for adding to it...Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, I was already handling a sock and they were continuously removing this remake controversy..Lol. So when I find you were on it, I just improved your creation.(: -Kthxbay (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPA[edit]

Haven't you been already told that "Calling people a sock without any evidence is a WP:NPA [2]"? And you are doing this again. If you do this again, anywhere on Wikipedia then you will find yourself land on WP:ANI. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Kumar Goel, I didnt call you a sock, only reverted your post on my page by terming 'possible sock'(-: - Regards

May 2020[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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. Lourdes 10:23, 8 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been fighting vandalism and reported a user for edit waring but to my surprise I have been blocked for sock puppetry whereas I was previously fighting socks. Please see my complete edit history, it's my only legitimate account as I'm fully aware of the consequences of sock puppetry. I'm just very politely asking to review my block as there is a possibility of some misunderstanding. It is pertinent to mention that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat has got nothing in common with me and their edit history would support my argument.-Kthxbay (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 20:57, 24 May 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.

When did 1 revert started to become "edit warring" to the extent that you have to report about it on WP:AN3? Sock or not, the block can stand on many different grounds. Why you keep calling people a sock and a vandal without any evidence? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kthxbay, both you and Wolfagain1 have a bone to pick with Aman kumar goel. Both of you use the terminology "you remained block(ed) for edit warring" against Aman in different articles, as listed here: [3][4]. Both your accounts were created within one day of each other. Both of you use the same IP range. Come clean and reveal all your other accounts and I would strongly consider unblocking you. Otherwise, you are on thin ice and this is an indefinite block. Lourdes 18:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, just for a second think objectively. This all started here [5] and then I took this discussion here[6]. Aman has a history of edit warring and it's also a fact that they remained blocked also. This guy Wolfagain and Aman locked their horns in an entirely different matter (as Aman has a history and you are well aware of that). Moreover, if Wolf have mentioned Aman's previous block, it has got nothing to do with me. As far as Nangparbat is concerned, they haven't got any common edit with. We are poles a part and that's pretty obvious. A CU also completed a check on relevant users here [7] and the outcome is quite obvious.

Now, let me say that don't you think you were too quick to block me? (Even didn't wait for CU's findings). You are an admin and for sure you can keep me indef but I have put across the logical truth in front of you. Please go through my edit history, more than 600 edits and not even a single block prior to this. Now I leave it to your fine judgment whether you unblock me. And one thing I can assure you that if I'm unblocked, I would behave more carefully.-Kthxbay (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman has a history of edit warring... but it cannot be a justification for your inability to edit here.[8] A CU also completed a check on relevant users here and the outcome is quite obvious ... that you were engaging in trolling and destructive behavior[9][10] by abusing multiple accounts. Your issues such as your failure to understand simple English words, battleground mentality, inability to interpret sources and many other issues tell that one can expect many things but that you would behave more carefully, which is clearly impossible given your reply here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review of Kthxbay's edits shows me that he engages in nationalistic POV pushing and that he refuses to acknowledge consensus. The block should remain in-place. Knox490 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kthxbay, your explanation does not quite sound right as there are too many commonalities between both accounts, including having the same bent of editing, and other things I have explained. I am not going to unblock you till a satisfactory explanation is provided. Any other administrator can review your request and take a different decision if they seem it worth it. Lourdes 09:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: This is just an FYI comment. They both come from the same IP address, which from what I can understand appears to be some publicly shared IP. They use a different mobile device within a day on that IP. So this could be meat, or this could be advanced socking. I do see another sockmaster on the IP, but I doubt this is them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted Amanda. Thanks. Lourdes 03:22, 10 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

After a while I am requesting for unblock since there was no evidence of sock puppetry against me. The other user used different device and had entirely different behavior. It is pertinent to mention that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat has got nothing in common with me and their edit history would support my argument.Kthxbay (talk) 7:41 pm, 7 September 2020, Monday (11 days ago) (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

On the contrary, the evidence of sockpuppetry is very strong. You have to explain what's going on. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:13, 18 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.

"no evidence of sock puppetry against me"? You were convicted of sock puppetry per CU results. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]