User talk:Vishalmehta3

Welcome!

Hello, Vishalmehta3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Charlie Kay Chakkar Mein ‎. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DThomsen8 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hi there! 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. Thanks! 220 of ^Borg 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Glamsham

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Glamsham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —SpacemanSpiff 11:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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. Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 21 November 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).

Vishalmehta3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I have not followed some guidelines of Wikipedia due to which my account has been blocked. I understand that I must follow all the guidelines and be extra careful. I also assure that it won't be repeated in the future.

Decline reason:

You won't be unblock unless you agree to stop spamming links and references to Glamsham. If I see other accounts doing the same thing, I'll be happy to add Glamsham to our MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 23 November 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).

Vishalmehta3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not spamming. I was posting genuine information related to the movie i.e. Music Reviews, Movie Reviews and other news of the movies. Whatever I was posting was just for providing information to the users. If then too if it is considered spamming according to Wikipedia guidelines then I assure that I will stop references to Glamsham

Decline reason:

If you really were "providing information to the users" you would be adding references to the best sources of information. You've only added links to glamsham.com -- and that makes it extremely obvious why you were doing so. MER-C 20:56, 25 November 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).

Vishalmehta3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand and I can assure that I won't be spamming links and will find better resources that will be more relevant to the users. Request you to kindly unblock me.

Decline reason:

All unblock requests should be made with your original account, Sirfmovie. Max Semenik (talk) 01:35, 20 December 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.

If unblocked, would you add links to glamsham? PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: Just so you know, some of the puppets of this master were adding different spam links. So, it's not just glamsham that we need to be concerned about. If you need to know the website, I believe I can dredge it up. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be adding links to glamsham. I sincerely apologize for edits. I will not repeat this behavior again. I will also like to know the list of website that are considered in spam so that I do not add the links to the website that can cause my account to be blocked again.