User talk:Mewrising

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. 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/Aish.ego, 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.

Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Aish.ego (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A request for an answer- why am I recieving this message? Mewrising (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Genuinely, needing help. Apparently from an edit I reverted on Abhishek Bachchan and a good reference that i added to the reverted text in support of it, my account has been rendered out of order. This could have been the first time I edited without going for the talk page of the article. I read about editing wikipedia and comprehended that writing things with proof was okay. However, i wuld have rather prefered t have been warned before being subjected to the action.

Decline reason:

Your editing is the same as a banned user. Pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry. only (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Genuinely, needing help. Apparently from an edit I reverted on Abhishek Bachchan and a good reference that i added to the reverted text in support of it, my account has been rendered out of order. By revert, I mean that I saw the changes made by a user while deleting a sentence using the facility of viewing the difference between the two edits; then, I had to nearly copy paste the sentence as it was not somehow possible to simply revert it.To be on the safe side, i added another reference in its favor. This could have been the first time I edited without going for the talk page of the article. I read about editing wikipedia and comprehended that writing things with proof was okay. However, i wuld have rather prefered t have been warned before being subjected to the action.

Decline reason:

Your editing is the same as a banned user. Pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:00, 3 March 2014 (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.

Your "revert" was this edit. You're telling me you happen to find this edit from September, about 125 edits into the page's history, and reverted it back in? I'm not buying it. only (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The time i reverted it, few weeks back, yes i went through another dozens of edits on it. Yes I did. As ar as I recall, i found this particular edit on the first page of the list itself. Please help me keep this true point. Mewrising (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have wrote my problem in detail, but perhaps the statement ""by revert, I mean that I saw the changes made by a user while deleting a sentence using the facility of viewing the difference between the two edits; then, I had to nearly copy paste the sentence as it was not somehow possible to simply revert it.To be on the safe side, i added another reference in its favor"" was missed. When I am reverting a sentence by copy pasting, it automatically means the edit is going to be just like the previous edit. I added another reference too. Now it doesn't and should not mater to me whose edit i reverted. I just reverted an edit i found was not good. Without being informed it could lead to problems, this is going on. I hence copy paste again my appeal, yes, since it is copy pasted, it is exactly like the previos appeal here onwards- Genuinely, needing help. Apparently from an edit I reverted on Abhishek Bachchan and a good reference that i added to the reverted text in support of it, my account has been rendered out of order. By revert, I mean that I saw the changes made by a user while deleting a sentence using the facility of viewing the difference between the two edits; then, I had to nearly copy paste the sentence as it was not somehow possible to simply revert it.To be on the safe side, i added another reference in its favor. This could have been the first time I edited without going for the talk page of the article. I read about editing wikipedia and comprehended that writing things with proof was okay. However, i wuld have rather prefered t have been warned before being subjected to the action.

Decline reason:

Your editing is the same as a banned user. Pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry. (If you keep giving essentially the same unblock reason, your going to keep getting the same decline reason). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:14, 3 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Every revert is identical to the previous editing. In other words, every revert , whether automatic, or copy paste, reults in same text. I would like to get justified about the reason I am being given. I am putting my point for the fourth time. Whatevr Aishego account it is; is it that if an editor happens to revert the edit of any user, which unknowingly happens to be a blocked user, the person who reverted is blocked? And that too on the presumption that the person is the same blocked person? And in any case, I am also curios if it is presumed that the blocked user could have made no good edit which was worth reverting; was so universally bad that a person reverting it would be immidiately blocked?

Decline reason:

Looks like this user has declined further participation on Wikipedia themselves (below), so I'm just giving the result they asked for. - Vianello (Talk) 03:24, 4 March 2014 (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.

Your "point" isn't making any sense with regards to the reason you were blocked, which was sockpuppetry; specifically, that this account is operated by a blocked user, Aish.ego. Until you address that issue, there's no chance of you being unblocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ..okay that's whaat I m saying. Whatevr Aishego account it is; is it that if an editor happens to revert the edit of any user, which unknowingly happens to be a blocked user, the person who reverted is blocked? And that too on the presumption that the person is the same blocked person? Mewrising (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your edits, it's obviously that this account is a sockpuppet of Aish.ego, as both accounts repeatedly added the same dumb content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are being a little unpleasant here. Well firstly it would be good that if you do not call me who i am not. Secondly, I liked that ""dumb" content, which is true but in case it still required any proof, i added another reference to an existing one. And did you say repeatedly? I did it once. Mewrising (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat this one last time: you have been blocked for creating another account after your first one was blocked, period, end-of-story. If you create a third account and try to re-add content that several other users told if is not appropriate (as what you are claiming is not direct supported by the source), we'll block that account too. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okayy... you are Aish ego. The only difference is that you refrain from reverting his/her edits because you know your previos aish ego account had been blocked and hence reverting its edits could land you in trouble. People e so ryt..wikipedians are joked about everywhere, i will jin in next time. Hah...editing for no personal benefit., n imposing another identity on others. Good bye. I m not employed here that you think you just fired me. And hang on.. if i ever want to edit again, instigated by your false accusations, i could create five to ten accounts from my computers or lap tops or tabs (and of course, this time i wont revert ashaigo's edits.) lol. Catch it You know my book is going to be out in five months, i need no vandalism on my page that will then be created (and hopefully be ""protected"" by you). okayy?? yep, m a writer soon.

Also, either your english is bad, or you happen to write obnoxious one in hurry. Too mny grammatical mistakes in sentence framing- not a good editor's requirement.

PS- You believe it or not, your ""wikipedians"" believe it or not, Abhishek Bachchan believes and has admitted several times he is not a star. There is in fct a lot about him which neither makes a difference to you or to make. So cut it Mewrising (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That will be quite enough. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]