User talk:LALAJI1234
LALAJI1234, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi LALAJI1234! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC) |
April 2021
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yashwant Sinha, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Your edits to St. Xavier's, Hazaribagh , Raj Kumar Gupta, and A. Gitesh Sarma were also unsourced. Two points to keep in mind: "notable alumni" in a school article should not include individuals that are not notable according to Wikipedia's definition, and a secondary school should not be included in the "alma mater" information in an infobox in an article about a person. (The documentation for the infobox specifies that "alma mater" is ...the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not included at all if the person does not have a degree). Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind information. I shall take care in future regarding references. LALAJI1234 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Final warning: Please do not add castes to people or people to caste lists without reliable sourcing including self identification. —SpacemanSpiff 10:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC) I think you have not read 'Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha'. Those who write SRIVASTVA/AMBASTA/ASTHANA/KARAN/NIGAM/MATHUR as their surnames are Chitraguptavanshis. This is unfair from your part to revert my edit.talk
Drop the nationalist chest-thumping, now
[edit]On Wikipedia, we judge contributions on their merits, not on the nationality or ethnicity of the editor who makes them. Any editor who follows the guidelines for editing is welcome.
In light of this, that sort of intimidation is an unacceptable breach of WP:CIVILITY. It is somewhat understandable if it was an angry outburst, but if you repeat that behaviour you are likely to be banned.
If you have evidence that your edits were reviewed unfairly due to your nationality, please post it; otherwise, assume good faith in others. If you think your edits were incorrectly reverted, discuss it (civilly) with those who reverted them, bringing arguments founded in Wikipedia’s guidelines. If you do not understand how something works here, you can ask at the Teahouse, but be open to the possibility that you are wrong. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I want to know that how will I cite source of person's caste if his surname is the only source. This is why I asked the person who reverted my edits was an Indian or not? Caste has a different way of functioning in India. LALAJI1234 (talk) 3:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- You do not need to know someone else’s nationality, birth place etc. to comment. If you think they are unaware of some cultural context, explain it to theme with some variation of "are you aware that [thing every Indian knows]?".
I want to know that how will I cite source of person's caste if his surname is the only source.
You won’t. Surname is not a reliable source for caste. Maybe you can guess with a 99% chance, but that is original research, and it should not be put on Wikipedia.- Furthermore, even if you have a decent source about their caste, this probably falls under the WP:ETHNICITY guideline which says (paraphrased) that you should not mention someone’s ethnicity is the lead unless it is a crucial part of their public identity. So, for instance, the lead of Muhammad Ali Jinnah has to mention his work towards Pakistan independence; the lead of Sean Connery (an actor who supported Scottish independence) mentions him as Scottish, rather than British; but the lead of Jennifer Lawrence does not describe her as "Kentucky actress" (at least until she starts funding a Kentucky independence movement).
- You might search through the archives of Wikiproject India (admittedly I have not read all discussions related to caste because life is too short) to get a feel of how it works for Indian castes but my understanding is that it is very similar (only put down the caste if there are ironclad sources for it, and do not put too much emphasis on it).
- TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 19:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Community sanctions pertaining to South Asian social groups
[edit] | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Doug Weller talk 19:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 12:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 12:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- A heads up that if you continue to add caste information without consensus you will end up banned from all articles related to Indian social groups. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Can I ask you MR? what was the reason to revert my edits on Lalitaditya Muktapida? The person who reverted it simply "undid" my edits without any basis . I accept my mistake on terming him "LUNATIC". But will you answer my first part?LALAJI1234 13:22 , 14 September 2021 (UTC)
What consensus are you talking about? Will you have a consensus on existence of God? Hey! You Christian I am asking you? (LALAJI1234) 13:28 , 14 September, 2021
WHAT IS THE BASIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- You cannot call other editors "lunatics" and you cannot speculate on their personal identities. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 13:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)- Your block has been increased to one week. Please take the time to think about how to approach editing on Wikipedia. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
WAIT MAN WAIT ......I WILL SUE YOU JUST WAIT MAN..... YOU ARE CONSIDERING YOURSELF A BOSSS AHHH.... I NEVER INTERWINED IN EDITS OF "ROYAL BRITISHERS". WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DISRUPT MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND THAT OF SO MANY KAYASTHAS???? I WILL SUE YOU.... JUSYT WAIT AND WATCH!!! (talk)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)- I'm giving you a shot at coming back by not taking away your talk page privileges. I suggest you read WP:UNBLOCK carefully before posting anything else here. One more legal threat, removal of block notices, or personal attack and you'll lose your talk page privileges. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I WANT TO QUIT WIKIPEDIA . THANKS FOR MAKING IT INCLUSIVE AND SHOWCASING YOUR WESTERN SUPREMACY. AND YEAH I WONT "TOUCH YOUR TEMPLATES". JUST ADD ONE MORE WHICH WILL GUIDE ME TO QUIT IT.(LALAJI1234)
- The way to quit Wikipedia is simply to stop editing. Unfortunately accounts can't be deleted. BTW please note also that there is no consensus on the existence of God; see for example Atheism. Bishonen | tålk 14:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC).
THEN UNBLOCK ME
YOU BLOCKED ME AT FIRST BECAUSE I USED THE WORD "LUNATIC" TO WHICH I APPOLOGISED . THEN WHY FURTHER BLOCKS?---(LALAJI1234)(talk) 14:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah. If you think that's the only problem with your behavior, you are not compatible with this project, and you have not read my UTRS decline. As I do not see where you have been educated as to Wikipedia's rules, please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPA, and WP:NLT. ANd that's just for starters. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
UTRS 48096
[edit]UTRS appeal #48096 is closed. Oh, so very closed. At the time of this writing, user has talk page access. Y'all more patient than I. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Please unblock me . Whatever I said was due to heat of the moment. (talk) 14:32 , 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- My goodness. No. Please withdraw your legal threat first of all. We'll start with that.14:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
OK. I withdraw my legal threat as it was out of emotion which i yelled. 14:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nice start. You will need to evince understanding of the other areas I linked to. Add to those WP:BRD and dispute resolution. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
TBAN
[edit]@SpacemanSpiff, Doug Weller, RegentsPark, and Bishonen: Should user clear all the other hurdles to unblocking, I believe topic bans on South Asian social groups, and on India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and perhaps on religion as well, should be part of any unblock conditions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
WILL MY BAN WILL NEVER BE UPLIFTED? LALAJI1234 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- No idea, but I support what User:Deepfriedokra says above. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I was going to say "I think an IPA topic ban is a must if the user is unblocked. We need to see evidence that they are here to build the encyclopedia and not just push a certain point of view. Also, what's with the all caps?" but the editor appears to have retired so all this is moot. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you show you understand all the problems with your edits and can show you would edit constructively, yes. It starts with you reading all the material I linked to. Personally, if you were a member of my ethnicity and had insulted other peoples as you have done, I'd have been much less tolerant. We just get so tired of the racists coming here and being racists. Whatever their ethnicity. Retirement works too. We do not delete user talk pages. Courtesy blanking may be an option. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
If the reverend administrator thinks my edits are unworthy and that I am not contributing to wikipedia and I am here to just put one point of view then my talk page should be erased. LALAJI1234 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
PLEASE UNBLOCK ME
UNBLOCK ME
[edit]UNBLOCK ME
- Please address the reasons for your block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I cite the following reasons to unblock me; • INEXPERIENCE IN EDITING • LOSING COOL DUE TO HEAT OF THE MOMENT --- As I used derogatory language. ( 'LUNATIC' was intentional but the rest weren't ) • LACK OF SOUND KNOWLEDGE ON WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES
I have received my punishment of a ban. I want to be an independant editor . We learn from mistakes so I request the administrator to repeal my "indefinite ban" or reduce its duration. talk 16:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- LALAJI1234, I looked over your contributions and I'm willing to unblock you if you make a proper unblock request (see WP:UNBLOCK). However, the unblock will come with a topic ban on anything to do with South Asian Social groups. You can appeal the topic ban after six months. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Unblock Me
[edit]
LALAJI1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I appologise for my initial comments that I made on the edits of 'Lalitaditya Muktapida'. I appologise for the comments I made against the administrator' specially for threatening a legal action ' (it was because of the heat of the moment). I have been genuinely been contributing to this encyclopedia and want to continue . I reiterate my reverts on 'Lalitadtya Muktapida' weren't wrong. I want my "indefinite ban" to be repealed without any conditions. I would like to proclaim that: • I will not use derogatory language against any editor in future. • I shall not threaten any editor for legal proceedings. • My edits shall be liable for scrutiny and debate. • My edits shall pertain to only south asian groups.
Decline reason:
As you were told above, you will not be unblocked without agreeing to a topic ban from South Asian social groups. Since you say that's the only area you want to edit in, you will need to remain blocked. A topic ban would not be permanent, but you will need to show us through your edits in other topic areas and interactions with other editors that you can civilly contribute. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
UNBLOCK ME
[edit]LALAJI1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I agree for a topic ban on South Asian Social Groups.
Decline reason:
Moot as you have already accepted it and been unblocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
What areas will you make edits in since you won't be editing in that area? 331dot (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I am interested in sports, religion, culture, politics. I won't create an article but would dedicate myself only in providing citations in these sectors.
LALAJI1234 (talk) 8:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
UNBLOCK ME1
[edit]
LALAJI1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I accept my ban on South Asian Social Groups. I will edit only on topics pertaining to politics , sports, culture, cuisine, and language. I shall prove myself with these edits. Hence, I want my ban to be repealed
Accept reason:
unblock accepted with a sasg topic ban. RegentsPark (comment) 14:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to a sanction
[edit]
The following sanction has been imposed on you:
You have been indefinitely topic banned from making any edits or comments related to castes or social groups, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.
You have been sanctioned for making personal attacks and legal threats
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that topic. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. RegentsPark (comment) 14:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
--RegentsPark (comment) 14:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry. I was busy in RL or would have done this earlier. Though it says indefinite, you can ask for the topic ban to be lifted after six months of constructive editing. Best wishes.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much!
Copyright
[edit]
Your edit to Raj Kumar Gupta has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Kuru (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
November 2021
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 13:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)- Hi. You've been editing extensively on south asian social groups following your topic ban. Note that these blocks will escalate so please be careful when you return. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Unblock Request
[edit]LALAJI1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Respected Editors, while appealing for my previous block scenario I was told to build consensus regarding edits pertaining to SOUTH ASIAN SOCIAL GROUPS. My recent edit to "Subhas Chandra Bose " was reverted . I agreed to those edits but had some concern about the "WHYS". For which I even reported to the concerned editor. In my limited knowledge view I assure the Wikipedia community that I haven't violated the terms of my previous unblocks. If I have then I would request my ban duration to be reduced for a period of 3 days and hence, my ban be revoked.
Decline reason:
This is a clear violation of your topic ban. Honestly, I'm surprised that given your history, RegentsPark only blocked you for a week. —SpacemanSpiff 16:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
Just to inquire the wrong that I did by editing SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE page I wrote about it inquisitivly on the editors talk page. "I wanted to know that why it's wrong to put the caste identity of the said person."? For that reason I have been blocked how fair is that? LALAJI1234 (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I want my block to be reviewed by a genuine editors and not by those who seem to have personnel enmity with my presence on WIKIPEDIA. LALAJI1234 (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Unblock Request
[edit]LALAJI1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I admit my mistake of editing pages pertaining to SASG. For that reason I wan't I want my block period to be reduced to 3 days. But I do reiterate the point that SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE is indeed a "Bengali Kayastha". I have numerous sources ranging from books to JSTOR to prove it. This being his own identity should be included in his wikipedia page. I regret that it hasn't as of yet. LALAJI1234 (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You violated your topic ban, were blocked, and violated it again in this very request. I think it is doubtful this block will be removed early, and should you continue to disrupt Wikipedia with these requests, I will extend the block. I suggest you use this time to reevaluate how you participate here. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
- I will extend your block if you don't stop this nonsense. You are continuing to discuss topics that you're banned from via your unblock requests. You have made numerous violations of your topic ban now. It is also increasingly clear that you aren't here to build an encyclopaedia but just to advance an agenda.—SpacemanSpiff 06:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
So you can use the word "NONSENSE" ? How fair is that? I have stated in my unblock request thereby admitting that I made a mistake by editing on SOUTH ASIAN SOCIAL GROUP . And since my previous blocks have I only edited on SASG? You can check my contribution list for that. It's wrong to say that I am here with a particular agenda. LALAJI1234 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Harassment by a Editor
[edit]Despite admitting my mistakes I am not allowed to present my opinion. I am being threatened for further blocks without even knowing my side of argument.A particular editor has used derogatory terms in his address to my unblock request. I have also been accused irresponsibly of being here with a particular agenda and not contributing towards the growth of encyclopedia. I am not used to this kind of "judgement ". It could have been told in a cultured manner. I urge other editors to take note of this.[1]LALAJI1234 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
UNBLOCK REQUEST 2
[edit]I want to be unblocked . Any terms and conditions placed by editors could be agreed upon. LALAJI1234 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Unblock Request 3
[edit]I have waited for one whole day but still my no one has reviewed my requests. I have admited my mistake of editing articles pertaining to "SASG". And would like to assure the community that such mistakes won't happen again in future. Thus, I request my block to be removed without any preconditions. LALAJI1234 (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Admins are volunteers working on their own time and are not available 24/7. And only one open request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Kindly unblock me please.LALAJI1234 (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Unblock Request 4
[edit]LALAJI1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I admit my mistake of editing "Subhas Chandra Bose" page which falls under the category of "SASG" . While I was going through his article I found that information regarding his caste was missing. So I thought of adding it. I was astonished to see that I was able to edit it. So I thought that my said ban on SASG must have expired. And hence, I completed its editing. I did it without being aware that ban was still active. So this incident happened because of my negligence of the fact that despite being banned on a particular topic I could still edit a particular article. So I would urge the editors to pardon this act of mine which unfortunately happened in ignorance of my knowledge . Thus, requesting the WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY to unblock me
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, it's not just the Bose article. I see [1], [2], and others. I agree with SpacemanSpiff that I was overly kind. My suggestion is you wait out the one week quietly or you'll lose talk page access as well. RegentsPark (comment) 23:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
REVIEW MY UNBLOCK REQUEST
[edit]I request any editor to review my unblock request LALAJI1234 (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Non administrators cannot review your request. Such a short block will not go to a community discussion, and I don't think you want it to. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Please review my new request.LALAJI1234 (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can't. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Why?LALAJI1234 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Is it because you have already reviewed one. In that case I have to wait for another editor which may be cumbersome experience.LALAJI1234 (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Unblock request 5
[edit]LALAJI1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
For all those edits I made to SASG was done because of my limited knowledge that my block has expired as I was able to edit those pages. Hence, it was unintentional and done out of sheer negligence of the said knowledge. I request administrators to see this aspect of mine and waive off my block.
Decline reason:
I can see that I'm going to have to implement RegentsPark's suggestion and revoke your talk page access for the duration, so that you ... well, so that we won't have to deal with similarly impatient requests for that time. How you spend that time is up to you. Use it wisely. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
LALAJI1234 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we know that when you are topic banned, there is nothing technical to prevent you from editing about it, a topic ban relies on the person themselves complying with it and nothing more. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
UTRS 51482
[edit]UTRS appeal #51482 declined. LALAJI1234 needs to take the time to calm down and consider the causes of the 1 week block rather than reflexively filing appeal after appeal. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
UTRS 51572
[edit]UTRS appeal #51572 is now open. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- The block & the appeal have expired. You are reminded that the topic ban on South Asian social groups applies to discussing or adding that topic on ather articles. Cabayi (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
April 2022
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 19:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)