User talk:Bhinegar

Welcome!

Hi Bhinegar! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But

I had revert your edit to dollar sign, I think you put it in the wrong place? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:Asdfjkl1235

Hello Bhinegar, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Asdfjkl1235, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. creffett (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I have reverted some of your edits because they do not suggest that you have given any thought to what you are writing before you have written it.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

You also redirected a number of talk pages without giving any reason in the edit summary. Even if you had, this is an exceptional action to take and not something you should do before you have had a lot more experience. Please use the Teashop to get advice on what you are trying to do. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Deutchland, you may be blocked from editing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator noticeboard reference

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple disruptive edits by this editor John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I think that I should be unblocked. It was wrong for you to block me because I did not know that redirecting pages by their language was silly and distruptive. I was only trying to help Wikipedia, so I made dozens of redirects. When I realized that I was wrong, I immediately stopped. I had made dozens of redirects by then. But I was only trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Bhinegar (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. There's the seven hour gap and there's the unsourced edits. Yamla (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2020 (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.

There appears to have been a gap of a good seven hours between the first warning you received and the block. Is "I did not know" really the right excuse? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

There may have been a gap of 7 hours, but some information I added was true. For example, I added the letter Č to the Estonian alphabet page because some people say it is used in Estonian. I wanted to see if my information was true or not, because I was not sure if Č was used in Estonian. I really need help on editing Wikipedia. Bhinegar (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

You don't need to create a new unblock request just to reply to my message; doing so, in fact, is considered disruptive, and I'd recommend you remove this second unblock template.

As for the substance of your remark, I'm really not sure I understand. How would adding hearsay to an article help you confirm its veracity? In any case, under no circumstances should you be adding unsourced info to Wikipedia; see WP:V. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long is An Indefinite block? I only tried to help Wikipedia. I wasn't vandalizing it on purpose, can I please get unblocked within 72 hours?Bhinegar (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block lasts until an administrator is convinced that the block is no longer necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. I would highly recommend that you carefully read the advice in the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How should I be unblocked?Bhinegar (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin, your edits (including your deleted ones, and your filter log) look like trolling to me, so I'm not willing to unblock you myself. Having said that, if another admin thinks differently, there's no need to check with me to unblock. If you wish to be considered to be unblocked, I would highly suggest that you study the Guide to appealing blocks, first. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

If that was your latest attempt at trolling, shame on you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhinegar. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]