User talk:Duarfimaws

Refrain from using Talk pages for primary research[edit]

Please stop using Wikipedia for primary research. Also note, talk pages are ONLY used for discussion related to improving the article and for resolving issues with the article. See WP:FORUM#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. Refrain from misusing talk pages. Thank you. Kapil.xerox (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshan Swami, pramukh swami's closets aid did leave BAPS. This is a fact. Is it important to the BAPS article? It needs to be discussed. Stop vandalizing the talk page my deleting discussions.

Duarfimaws (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of how Wikipedia works. You cannot discuss topics for which there exists no credibly sourced information that meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. Even if you think it is a fact. Unless, you can come up with verifiable neutral sources and establish its noteworthy, you should refrain from discussing in the talk pages. You have been warned by User:Sacredsea here, and I also warned you (See User_talk:Duarfimaws#Refrain_from_using_Talk_pages_for_primary_research - and asked you to go read WP:FORUM#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought which clearly explains "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research WP:OR, please do not use Wikipedia for proposing ideas. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion."

I am warning you a second time. You have reverted the edits thrice (See [first instance], [second instance], and [third instance], thus have violated WP:3R. Please stop reverting, you may get blocked. Kapil.xerox (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Kapil.xerox (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing, including WP:BLP violations, edit warring, and POV-pushing, as you did at Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. See the block list for more blocks. Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the disruptive edits occurred at the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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/Duarfimaws, 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.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I would like to apologize for creating multiple accounts. I was frustrated at users and did not know what the correct avenue to get my point across. I have reviewed many procedure and guidelines of Wikipedia so that this does not happen again. The three accounts that I have created are Duarfimaws, 6Duarf.imaws, Swamioffraud and Swamifraud (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Incomplete disclosure per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2013 (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.

Keep going; checkuser shows at least one more. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:23, 13 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am so sorry, I think I forgot one. I don't know which one it is. I will not do this again. I thought that I was really being attacked because I did discuss my edits on the discussion page but even those were deleted. I really am sorry and want to contribute in a positive way. I know a lot of information about Swaminarayan Hindusism so when I felt like something needed to be put up and then when I did, it got reverted, I didn't know what to do so I kept reverting the changes and then it led me to get blocked. I would like to apologize and really get back to making this site a better place. We all have calmed down. I know that there is a lot for me to learn and I really like the fact that we can discuss everything before posting and getting a consensus. I am ready to be a positive force on Wiki. I look forward to consulting with administrators if I have any questions. Thank you.Duarfimaws (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I think I forgot one. I don't know which one it is." I'm sorry, but that won't do. I'm sure you really mean this, but if we let people get unblocked who can't remember all their sock accounts, we'd have a lot more socking problems than we do. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2013 (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.