User talk:Vedbas

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Bāsudēba kr̥ṣṇa! Welcome to Wikipedia! You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Draftifying articles[edit]

Hello, Vedbas,

You have been editing for less than 2 weeks and have about 100 edits. You have no where near enough experience to be moving pages from main space to draft space. Please stop doing this until you have much, much more experience editing articles and are more familiar with Wikipedia policies, practices and standards.

If you have questions, please visit the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand thanks.Chief Minister (Talk) 04:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Did I make a mistake somewhere in drafting? If you say a little.Chief Minister (Talk) 04:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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 ~~~~}}. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to stop draftifying articles but you persisted so I'm giving you a short block. You are a brand new editor and you are taking on responsibilities that editors with much more experience, like page reviewers, do. Once this draft expires, I recommend visiting Articles for Creation and ask to sign up for the training required. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't understand at first, now I understand, forgive me and unblock please. Chief Minister (Talk) 05:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You admit that you are not currently proficient. Please use the time of this block to read our policies and guidelines. No need to rush back to editing while you don't yet understand how to do it. Yamla (talk) 10:05, 9 June 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.

@Liz: I realized my mistake. Forgive me. I will not do this again until I become proficient.Chief Minister (Talk) 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you started moving articles from mainspace to draft space as soon as you were auto-confirmed, before doing any content-related editing. This raises the question of what topic area you came to edit in, or why you decided to do such a mostly obscure type of editing. I am not an admin and cannot unblock you, but I will ask what topic areas you plan to edit in when you are unblocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am now planning to revise the article and add information.Chief Minister (Talk) 05:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hello, Vedbas,

While it might have seemed that my action was swift, you are a very new editor and you were acting very unusually. The short block was to get your attention. You draftified 18 articles in one day which is way, way more than even very experienced editors do and you knew enough about Speedy Deletion to tag the redirects from main space to draft space. It raises questions about whether you are a returning editor and what previous usernames you might have edited under. If continue like this, you will draw attention from other editors besides myself.

You don't have enough experience (days active and number of edits) yet but when you do, you might consider joining AFC Reviewers or the New Pages Patrol since you seem to have a good feeling for what constitutes a good article on Wikipedia.

You seem to already know quite a lot about Wikipedia practices and policies but consider visiting the Teahouse if other questions arise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward le Bas[edit]

Hello. Thanks for noticing the copyright violation on the above page. I removed the revision deletion template you placed and replaced it with a speedy deletion tag, under CSD G12. As it stands, there are no revisions on the page to delete, and no non-copyright content to restore save for a very brief (and honestly, insufficiently sourced) article. For cases like this, it is better to request deletion of the entire page. Thanks again! A S U K I T E 18:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asukite, okay thanks,You can do this if you want Chief Minister (Talk) 18:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing AfD nominations[edit]

You are a new editor and you do not yet understand the deletion process for AfD. I can see two AfD nominations you have made using Speedy Deletion criteria: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinit K. Bansal (Author) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viy Cortez. Please stop doing these; Cortez is likely notably and it is clear you did not do a WP:BEFORE, and Bansal just needed to be Speedy Deleted rather than a week-loing AfD involving multiple editors. You have just been unblocked recently for draftifying articles too quickly. You need to slow down and learn how things work here, rather than charging into processes you do not yet understand. --- Possibly (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/777 Charlie (2nd nomination) is also an improper nomination. --- Possibly (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, It's my fault I'm accepting Chief Minister (Talk) 04:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. AFD is quite complicated. If you want to do speedy deletion nominations, you can use WP:Twinkle for that. But go very, very slowly, and learn how each criteria works before using it. You also need to give articles a minimum of ten minutes in article space for them to develop. You AfD'd the Vinit K. Bansal (Author) article three minutes after it was published. So take it slow. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: I feel Vedbas is gaming the system by nominating an article I created within half an hour. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please wait I nominated it for promotion please now your comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrongVPN Chief Minister (Talk) 16:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic AFD[edit]

Your nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shashank Kumar was placed on a vandalised version of the page. I have reverted to a pre vandalism revision and closed the AFD. If you're not willing to do the WP:BEFORE & preliminary checks please don't make the AFD nomination. Cabayi (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the history, the vandalism had started, but was still very subtle at the point where you nominated. Cabayi (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Hi @Cabayi: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Script please I'm requesting give me this access.Chief Minister (Talk) 07:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser is the place to ask for AWB. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capital city[edit]

I have just made two edits to this article and i see that i have entirely undone your edit; apologies if that feels bad. The categories you added were not appropriate, as i say in the summaries, because there's no reason to add specifically Cypriot categories to such a universal article, and because the "continental categories" you added are already within the main Category:Capitals; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 19:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WHY/What: Pearl.com[edit]

This is about your G11/Speedy on Pearl.com.

I note that you're a developer, hence contributing to Wiki in a way that is incomparable to what I'm doing, as an editor.

Briefly about myself and "history" - at one time I saw it as just memorizing dates (possibly just long enough to at least pass a test). I advanced, due to what I learned in a math class. What was stated from the front of the room was that 1732, as in 1.732, is the square root of three, and that one way to remember this is that George Washington was born in 1732.

Others may have heard that message. I heard a different one: 1732 is something to know as history. I learned something that day that is invaluable. Today I do have an interest in history; I should credit this to my parents, alas no longer in this world, both of whom showed a love for history.

My Pearl.com contribution is about history. I don't have any evidence that they still exist. Advertising it's not. A nomination for a regular AfD/Articles for Deletion is a point of view. A G11/Speedy seems to me as a calling out FIRE in a crowded theatre, and something that should be addressed by those in a position to do so, possibly noting the near-concurrent Speedy nomination of Rachel Goldman. Pi314m (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi314m: please see hereI suggested deleting it because it was deleted earlier for the same reason ,I was wrong so an admin fixed it.Chief Minister (Talk) 13:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abdullahi Omaar[edit]

Hello, I'd be interested to know your reason for reverting the constructive edit I made to this article; the statement "Omar belongs to a prominent family that hails from the Sa'ad Musa sub-division of the Habr Awal Isaaq clan." lacks any citation, and at any rate doesn't need to go above his parentage (as is the case in most articles, parentage comes first, with background on the family following if necessary). The citation given for the (poorly-worded/ nigh on incomprehensible) statement "His family was based in Hargeisa and reportedly have properties and estates in the city; the 6 piano neighborhood and the US Mission Headquarters belong to their family" is a dead link, that doesn't have an available archived version online. Therefore it is not acceptable as a citation. I am therefore confused as to why my edits were almost immediately reverted, and would appreciate some insight into your thought process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.160.24 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

I note that you have been warned and blocked in your short time here for jumping into areas where you are clearly not proficient. Today I see that you tagged Rachel Goldman for speedy deletion under WP:A7 although it contained many obvious indications of importance/significance. This is disruptive. Just add or correct some articles for the moment until you have become more aware of what our standards are, or you will find yourself blocked again. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images[edit]

I've noticed that you have added many images to infoboxes using incorrect syntax. The plain filename goes in the image parameter {e.g somephoto.jpg}. Any caption goes into the corresponding caption parameter. (Explained further in WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). It would be great if you would go back and fix these. MB 03:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MB Thanks your comments.but I've added many articles to this article that need a long time to correct them, so next time I'll remember these things later when I add the image WP:INFOBOXIMAGE. Thank you MB.Chief Minister (Talk) 04:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reply. First you said it would take a long tome to fix these because you added so many, then you said you would keep this in mind when adding future images. You went on to do other things but did not fix any of the images. Are you just going to leave these for others to fix? MB 17:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MBNo, I'm not leaving for others. I mean, it takes a long time to fix these articles, so I don't want to fix them. Next time I'll add the image keeping the rules in mind.Chief Minister (Talk) 17:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, you say that you are not leaving this for others, but that you don't want to fix them. That's so obvious a contradiction that I would have thought that anyone would be embarrassed to say it. Just as I would have thought that anyone would be embarrassed to archive good advice without even bothering to reply. And you claim to be a Mediawiki developer? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger yes I'm Mediawiki developer. Chief Minister (Talk) 18:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) So does Mediawiki have developers who think so illogically as to simultaneously say "I'm not leaving for others" and "I don't want to fix them" and believe them both to be true? I despair. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger I noticed your previous conversation, I saw that earlier that page was deleted for the same reason so I offered to delete it and after I gave you i realized that I had done something wrong, so thank you for giving me my mistake, and I was blocked to explain to me what Liz later said in his advice.Chief Minister (Talk) 18:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My ThanksYou followup to: WHY/What: Pearl.com[edit]

Thanks for your "I was wrong" response. That's a reminder to me that those in a higher position, in general, have what to teach. "I was wrong" reminds me of the Hebrew word 'GadLus' from the root word GaDoL/big/bigger/great (this msg being that not only are you ahead of me but, hopefully, you'll grow more). Once again, thanks for your response. Pi314m (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flush edits (sort of)[edit]

Hi — I've noticed that you're making largely redundant edits, already up in the several hundreds (!!), changing the references tag to the reflist template. Both are valid methods, AFAIK, so why make these changes? Your edit notes offer no clue, either, just saying 'fix'. Obviously you don't need to explain yourself to me, but if you wish to, I'd sure be interested to know. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,thanks for massage.I just (references) It removes (Reflist) Reflist template use I know the two are same However, I am using it to say that the template is standard,Chief Minister (Talk) 06:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that they are both 'standard'. But I guess that's one way quickly to drive up your edit count, if that were your aim for some reason... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man ,I have no interest To increase editing, I just want to improve Wikipedia. Chief Minister (Talk) 06:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To improve Wikipedia, you could be fixing typos, or improving grammar, or expanding articles. The edits you've been making do not improve Wikipedia. Granted, they don't make it worse either, but there is no need for those edits. Please stop. Steelkamp (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelkamp DoubleGrazing Having said that I have cleared the new article.If you don't mind I will try to give you some work suggestions. One more Can I clean up new articles? Chief Minister (Talk) 08:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop making these pointless edits that just add spaces. Fix typos, fix grammar, expand articles. Steelkamp (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vedbas seem to have made over 11+ edits in a minute a hour ago! i dont think a normal human can do that is this some sort of automated editing? RatnaHastin^talk 11:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin: Yes. In fact they kept up a continuous rate of 11 or more edits in each minute over a long time period. There is no question that they have been using some kind of automated editing. JBW (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, with no attempt whatever to improve in line with messages from editors expressing concerns. Most of the problems are well documented above, but I shall mention two particular problems. After you received relevant warnings on this page, you have made hundreds of edits of which this one is typical, making changes which have no effect on the displayed page. Above you have repeatedly stated that you have no intention of correcting large amounts of damage which you know you did, because you aren't willing to spend the time it would take, even though you are more than willing to spend huge amounts of time on doing further damaging editing. If you are to stand any chance at all of being allowed to return to editing you will have to do a pretty convincing job of making it clear that your future editing will be totally different from what you have done so far.

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 ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBW,Liz,Materialscientist please help

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).

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

Request reason:

reason:I asked Steenkamp a question And I didn't notice the next answer he gave Because I was getting a lot of notifications then Because then many users thank me.I would not have made such a contribution if I had noticed his next notice And I apologize I will not make such a contribution next time. Notice from the beginning that I have not made any contributions that any user has forbidden me to make So my humble request free me from the block and give me chance to contribute.I realized my mistake

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 27 June 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.

Did you actually read the message I posted about the block before you posted your unblock request? If I had known you were going to make an unblock request that totally ignored everything I said then I could have saved myself a lot of trouble by just spending five seconds posting a ready-made generic block notice, instead of spending several minutes composing and editing a longer message in the hope of helping you understand the reasons for the block. JBW (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBWHmmm I understand now.And I followed the guidelines .The future will not be so wrong in my contribution.I apologize.And requesting release from the blockade. Next time I will make a useful contribution And stay away from wrong contributions. I will refrain from editing interruptions And Wikipedia will be able to make a good contribution.Chief Minister (Talk) 03:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW,Deepfriedokra I will never be free from the siege again. Chief Minister (Talk) 14:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBW please unblock me.Chief Minister (Talk) 19:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) If it's not appropriate for me to be commenting here please someone tell me to mind my own business, but I just wanted to say to anyone considering the unblock request: Liz earlier asked the question, which remains unanswered, whether you are a returning editor and what previous usernames you might have edited under. The user's contributions history is indeed unusual, to put it mildly, for a new account (including jumping straight into editing their User:Vedbas/common.js). I don't know if edit history under earlier username(s) is relevant in the unblock context, but nevertheless I think Liz's question deserves an answer in order for us to see the full picture. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing I'm not a returning editor, I'm a new contributor.Vedbas (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Obviously, your behaviour suggests that you are not a new editor. Would you like to say us how you came to know how to revert others edits and how to install gadgets at common.js with your very early edits. For your information, checkusers can see which account have similar network, geolocation, user agent and browser with you, so you are not hidden on the internet. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 13:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually went around this user's talk page when he made a very minor and flush edit to a cricket article recently created by me. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 13:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A.A Prinon I'm a MediaWiki developer because I have my own ideas about these.Which you may have noticed on my user thank you.Vedbas (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice relating to unblock requests[edit]

I will make just one more attempt to help you. If this doesn't make a significant difference then I doubt that anything I can say will. If you are to have any chance at all of being unblocked, you need to do the following.

Re-read the guide to appealing blocks, assuming you have already read it. Your unblock requests have not come remotely near to complying with the advice there.
Re-read all of the messages in which editors have expressed concerns about your editing, including the message I wrote when I blocked your account. Your unblock requests have not come remotely near to addressing the reasons for the block.
Post an unblock request which actually addresses the reasons for the block, and which makes it clear that you thoroughly understand why you were blocked, and indicates that your future editing will be totally different from what you have done so far. Vague comments to the effect that you are sorry and won't do the same again, without indicating what you won't do again, are not going to work.
Get yourself a signature which complies with the requirements of Wikipedia:Signatures#Guidelines and policies. At the very least, make your signature conform to the following two requirements: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username and A customised signature should provide an easily identified link to your talk page. This is not one of the reasons for the block, but having a signature which does not help other editors is likely to add to the impression that you are an editor who is unwilling to edit collaboratively, which may influence any administrator reviewing an unblock request.

My final comment is to emphasise once again that if you are to be unblocked you must indicate that your editing will in future be totally different from what it was. Being unblocked so that you can go back to something similar to what you were doing, with a few minor changes, is not going to happen. JBW (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBW Why release me from the blockade? If I continue to edit like this, please block me at a later time without notice But if in any case I make a mistake, if it is a new job, give me a message to correct that mistake So I will correct that mistake.I understand that the edit I have been blocked for will not cause any harm or interruption, and will instead make useful contributions.I also understood the reasons for blocking me.I beg you to give me a chance and I want to make a good contribution and it will be completely different from the previous edit.My future edits will be completely different from what I have done so far And I beg you to give me a chance to free the block.I noticed the first notice to block JBW And I realized my editing was wrong.In the end I will refrain from the previous editing and through good editing I want to prove myself right once.I changed my signature.I apologize for all my mistakes Next I want to prove myself through good deeds that I will not make mistakes again next time.Vedbas (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Please unblock. Give me a chance. I understand my mistake.Vedbas (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: my Blocked for Wikipedia: Disruptive editing And I followed the Disruptive editing guidelines And understood. I will not add any more disruptive editing elements to the encyclopedia.Vedbas (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBWPlease release me from the block.Vedbas (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continual repetition of your request and pinging cannot make any admin more well-disposed towards you. If it has any effect at all it will be the opposite. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will never be free from the siege again.Vedbas (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

my Blocked for Wikipedia: Disruptive editing And I followed the Disruptive editing guidelines And understood. I will not add any more disruptive editing elements to the encyclopedia. Also I followed the advice of JBW Unblock. I beg you to give me a chance and I want to make a good contribution and it will be completely different from the previous edit.My future edits will be completely different from what I have done so far And I beg you to give me a chance to free the block.I noticed the first notice to block JBW And I realized my editing was wrong.In the end I will refrain from the previous editing and through good editing I want to prove myself right once.I apologize for all my mistakes Next I want to prove myself through good deeds that I will not make mistakes again next time.Vedbas (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Despite repeated pointers by experienecd editors, you fail to do any of the following: actually be specific in your appeal. "Disruptive editing" is just the words in the block notice, we want to see that you actually can say, in your own words, what made you disruptive and exactly how you'll avoid that in the future. You also don't respond to other concerns raised on the page (excepting the signature note). You say you are a mediawiki dev - I'm also not sure any MW dev could be as lacking in knowledge in some of the core functionality of the primary site that uses it. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 4 July 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.

Nosebagbear I understand my mistake, I beg you to give me a chance, if I am unblocked I will create a new page and work according to Wikipedia rules. Please I apologize I beg you to give me a chance.Vedbas (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Vedbas, i don't want to appear negative, but i really don't think you do understand. You have ignored the advice of three or four experienced editors to be specific about what you did wrong, and have pinged people unhelpfully several times. Please read this (i'll put each bit on its own line, so you can be sure to see it):

Say what you did wrong in the past.

Use your own words.

Be as clear and exact and precise as you can.

Do not say back that you will be good

Use the right form to ask for the block to be gone.

Do not ping all the time, or each time you write.

I fear that if you don't read and follow this advice, which is as simple and basic as i can get it, eventually you will be blocked even from this talk page. And that would be a pity. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

my Blocked for Wikipedia: Disruptive editing My mistake was Flush edits Freed from the siege, I would like to revise the article and create new articles And I followed the Disruptive editing guidelines And understood. I understand the Nosebagbear statement but I understand my mistake so I am requesting to give me a chance to release the block I will not add any more disruptive editing elements to the encyclopedia. I want to make a good contribution and it will be completely different from the previous edit.Vedbas (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing as it's been over a month. You may make a new request. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 14 August 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.

(Non-administrator comment) (It's like deja vu all over again...) @Vedbas: genuine question, and no criticism intended whatsoever — are you finding it difficult to express yourself in the English language, because you seem to be rehashing earlier arguments? If that is the problem here, then it might be unreasonable to expect you to come up with something original and eloquent for your appeal. (Of course, in that case it possibly also isn't a very good idea for you to be editing the English-language Wikipedia.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,@DoubleGrazing:I am not fluent in English, of course, so I have difficulty expressing myself .Vedbas (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating, "Flush edits Freed from the siege". This makes no sense. Please say it in your language. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And if you can say it in your own language one of the good points about the English Wikipedia is that we have some editors who understand most languages with at least several million speakers, even though most editors suffer from the Anglo-American aversion to "foreign" languages. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A chacun son goût --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: ধন্যবাদ আমার ভাষায় প্রকাশ করতে দেওয়ার জন্য আমি হিন্দি ও বাংলা ভাষায় পারদর্শী।আমি বলতে চাইছি Flush edits এবং ধংসপ্রবনতা সম্পাদনা চালিয়ে যাওয়ার জন্য আমাকে অবরুদ্ধ করা হয়েছে এবং দক্ষ ব্যবহারকারীরা আমাকে সতর্ক করা শর্তে ও আমি একই সম্পাদনা চালিয়ে যাই। এইজন্য আমাকে অবরুদ্ধ করা হয়েছে। তবে আমাকে দক্ষ ব্যবহারকারীরা যখন তাদের সতর্ক বার্তা দিয়েছিলেন আমি বুঝতে পারি নাই। কারণ তখন আমার নোটিফিকেশন আসছিল বার বার কারন আমাকে অনেক ব্যবহারকারীরা আমাকে ধন্যবাদ জানাই এইজন্য। তবে আমি পরবর্তী সময়ে বুঝতে পারি এবং তখন দেখি আমাকে অবরুদ্ধ করা হয়েছে।পরে আমি অবরুদ্ধ করার গাইডলাইন অনুসরণ করেছি এবং বুঝতে পেরেছি আমার সম্পাদনা পদ্ধতি ভুল ছিল।আমি পরবর্তী সময়ে এই ধরনের সম্পাদনা করা থেকে বিরত থাকব এবং আমাকে অবরুদ্ধ থেকে মুক্ত করা হলে বর্তমান সম্পাদনা থেকে আগের সম্পাদনার কোন মিল থাকবে না।আমি নতুন করে বিভিন্ন পাতা তৈরি এবং বিষয়শ্রেণী যুক্ত এছাড়া পাতা সংশোধনের কাজ করতে চাই।আমি না বুঝে এইরকম সম্পাদনা চালিয়ে যাওয়ার জন্য দুঃখিত,আমি ক্ষমা প্রার্থনা করছি এবং আমাকে একটা সুযোগ দেওয়ার জন্য অনুরোধ করছি।Vedbas (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Google translate--

Thanks for allowing me to publish in my language I am proficient in Hindi and Bengali. I mean I have been blocked from continuing to edit Flush edits and destructive and I continue to edit on condition that skilled users warn me. That's why I've been blocked. But I did not understand when the skilled users gave me their warning message. Because then my notifications kept coming again and again because many users thank me for this. But later I realized and then I was blocked. Later I followed the blocking guidelines and realized that my editing method was wrong. I will refrain from making such edits next time and if I am released from the block then from the current edit. There will be no matching of previous edits. I would like to create new pages and add categories and also edit pages. I'm sorry to continue editing without realizing it, I'm sorry and I'm asking for a chance.

What does "Flush" mean? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1] Vedbas (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: that's probably my fault, I was querying the hundreds of edits changing {{reflist}} to <references /> (or v.v., can't remember!), which had no effect on anything (other than driving up edit count...). I called this 'flush' editing, although I don't think it strictly speaking is. My bad. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked from editing this. I request you to check the contributions.I can get out of the ublock here? Vedbas (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're making progress, though your command of English might not be strong enough. Another admin will review and consider your request. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.Vedbas (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra Nosebagbear JBW any administrator don't reviewed,It's been 4 days since. Please give me a chance to work by unblocking.Vedbas (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]