User talk:KumarVenati

KumarVenati, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi KumarVenati! 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 experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job... Pratap Keshari Das (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the 2009 Indian general election has been accepted[edit]

List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the 2009 Indian general election, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 14:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Secular Progressive Front[edit]

Hello KumarVenati, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Secular Progressive Front, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Misleading People In The State Of Manipur

Please Delete It Give Wrong Message To People Of India

Please Understand KumarVenati (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not Abusing I Am Correcting That Page With Lot Of Spelling Mistakes KumarVenati (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny is strictly against Wikipedia policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar, you should also know that if you evade your block, any edit you make can be reverted by any user without regard for whether it was useful or not. That means any article created, or any changes made. That would be a colossal waste of time for you. So long as your account is blocked, you are not welcome to edit at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 21 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I Am Not Abusing Anyone I Just Corrected Spelling Mistakes In The Page Called Secular Progressive FrontKumarVenati (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry was confirmed. Even if that wasn't the case, both accounts have edited the same articles and both accounts don't properly capitalise words. Yamla (talk) 18:48, 21 June 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.

I Am Not Using Two Accounts

I Have Only One Account KumarVenati (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mam I Am Not Using Two Accounts Please Allow Me To Edit KumarVenati (talk) 18:44, 21 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I Am Not Using UseSecond Account Please Consider My Contributions To Wikipedia Before Blocking Me P KumarVenati (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are lying. A CheckUser determined that you were operating at least two accounts. When you use multiple accounts to engage in disruptive behaviour, like the deletion of content you disagree with, (as you did at Secular Progressive Front), you are in violation of our sockpuppetry policy. I strongly suggest you think about your behaviour and figure out a coherent unblock request other than lies. If you keep lying, your next declined unblock request will result in your talk page access being removed. If you want to be unblocked, you'll have to convince a reviewing administrator that you understand what problems led to your block, as well as provide a plan for how you will behave in the future and avoid the problematic behaviour.

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).

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

Request reason:

I Am Sharing My Wikipedia Password With My Friend. I Am Suspecting Him For This Please Check My Contributions (History) To Indian Politics I Will Follow Wikipedia Guidelines I Will Be Doing Humble And Good Contributions To Wikipedia Please Allow Me Do EditsKumarVenati (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As noted above, a checkuser has confirmed you have been using multiple accounts abusively. Furthermore you admit in this unblock request that I Am Sharing My Wikipedia Password With My Friend. If this is true, we cannot prove you are the person who originally controlled this account. If you are telling the truth then this account will remain blocked as a compromised account and talk page access should be removed to stop the person who has compromised this account from committing further abuse. If on the other hand you are lying, then you have been warned that further lies will get your talk page access revoked. Therefore, I am declining this unblock request. I believe that you are still lying, but this does not affect how this is proceeds. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:37, 21 June 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.

I have removed your talk page access due to your repeated unblock requests that do not substantively address the reason for the block, as well as your admission that your account is not secure. If you wish to appeal your block, you can still do so via email to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KumarVenati. 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. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KumarVenati, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 18:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sarkaru Vaari Paata" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sarkaru Vaari Paata. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 8#Sarkaru Vaari Paata until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. GODUBNATION (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Logo 2020.JPG[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Logo 2020.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. CptViraj (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]