PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hey Terabar. Welcome back; I hope you've learned enough now. Remember: WP:TRUTH. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User: Joshua Jonathan. But what do you want to convey from this if you you were to express this advice in a single line? Huh? Terabar (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just this: don't get hooked again. When your sense of justice is being offended, you run in to defend what you deem right. Well, you may be right, but you'll need good sources to make your point. And then, still: WP:TRUTH. Criticism of Hinduism is just not worth it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Southeast Asian religion: disruptive forumshopping. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 72 hours for personal attacks, disruptive editing, and repeated false allegations of socking despite being warned. Calling allegations "opinion" or "suspicious" is sophistry and pretense. If you persist in this behavior after your block expires, you risk being blocked for considerably longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart. Thank you. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Siddheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 2 July 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me. The reason behind this is that truly I am not Siddheart. Siddheart is a different person whom I know personally through Faceboook. His original name is Siddhartha. He actually convinced me to edit Wikipedia and make some edits and so I did. I followed his edits on Wikipedia and was blocked for a suspected sock-puppetry as reported. I have no other words to say rather than to speak the truth. I can even disclose the personal conversation that took place between me and Siddheart. Whether you believe it or not, its up to you. If you want to decline my unblock request then you should should at least remove the tag of suspected sock-puppet of Siddheart as I am not Siddheart. I am just asking the concerned admin to give me a chance to edit Wikipedia. Thank you. Terabar (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be admitting that you did indeed edit on Siddheart's suggestion. That's a violation of WP:MEAT and indicates the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

User: Yamla, yes this could be a violation of Wikipedia policy on my part as I wasn't aware of this when I started editing Wikipedia on the call of Siddheart. Please forgive me for that as I wasn't conscious or aware about it that it could be WP: MEAT. After his call, I edited willingly to improve the Wikipedia. As for now, I just want to edit Wikipedia without the invitation of any other Wikipedian user. So from now onward, there will not be any violation of WP: MEAT. So for this reason, I request you to kindly Unblock me. Terabar (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Terabar (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is very likely that this is just another made-up story to get unblocked, your behavior here irrespective of the socking issue has been disruptive and the block should stand on that alone, however, the fact that your behavior coincides with that of the sockmaster just adds to the reason for the block. If these sort of frivolous unblock requests continue then your talk page access will also be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 11:11, 13 December 2017 (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.