User talk:Searchpow

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Ekal Vidyalaya, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Adiagr (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) 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. —SpacemanSpiff 16:14, 11 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not know why are you doing this? I have violated norms of Wiki nor it is a puppet account of anybody. I act on my own. Please explain this, there is no vandalism done by me in any past nor is my intention to do so. I can not fathom this action on false charges that too indefinitely. This is totally unfair. There is no detail of investigation on the page where the reason is put. Searchpow (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Please see this account history and reveal your investigation. Please be specific in reply and note the specific vandalism and violations. The spat erupted on the wiki page of Invading the Sacred but it is being resolved by discussion and the consensus was reached. Then everything went fine and suddenly I found this block. The indefinite period and no show of investigation totally unfair. Searchpow (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)} I have seen the investigation in the archives. The accused parties are not informed of the initiation of the investigation once started by Qwertyus on 26 July, 2015. After that the truce is reached on the talk page of the Invading the Sacred and the admin NeilN removed the edit block of the page. This fact is not been considered nor my editing other unique pages on the Wiki. Without hearing my side of plea the one sided action and that too informing when the decision is already taken is very unfair. Searchpow (talk)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the WP:CHECKUSER results, you're either a sockpuppet of User:Adiagr or a meatpuppet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:16, 14 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Rather than just basing your judgement on the investigation I request you to further investigate and assess my role more deeply. The investigation never sought our opinion and then declaring sermons on us without giving a chance to clarify. I am testifying that I am not a sockpuppet or metapuppet of any body. Check my talk page and investigate deeply. Seeing the so called investigation archives it only appears that the judgement is based on one complain and the log. You must give a hearing at least before deciding. One more thing when the block was decided on me by so called investigation I am not able to see what is that so called investigation until Adiagr appealed and then that investigation is appeared. Please track the details after the complain and take pain in hearing out the other side. Searchpow (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

Decline reason:

One request at a time, please. Max Semenik (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2015 (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.

'You must give a hearing at least before deciding'; this is an incorrect assertion on your part. Wikipedia is not a court of law. The checkuser results combine with the WP:DUCK test are all that is necessary in a situation such as this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 14 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request to again investigate it. I feel that investigation is not clearing the whole picture. It is not a court bu it is rational. I am not involved in any vandalism nor a sock puppet. Re open investigation and investigate my profile. See my discussion on talk page where my involvement is alleged. Is it too much to ask for? Searchpow (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not clear what else to investigate. Edits were similar to raise a suspicion, and a deeper investigation produced a technical match. Max Semenik (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2015 (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.