User talk:Pranamqwe

February 2019

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Center for Immigration Studies. Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 17:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Center for Immigration Studies, 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. You are being disruptive. This could lead to a block. Do not edit other people's comments. Jorm (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Center for Immigration Studies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Mr X 🖋 17:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)(Pranamqwe (talk))[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:11, 23 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

o

My main account is user:Banadea , alternate accounts are user:Bunadea ,User:Bunadea ,User:Bonadea

There is discussion in ANI notice board about my vandalism and disruptive editing , link follows :

 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=884926510&oldid=884926470#Request_to_delete_my_old_account

Previously i did many mistakes , but present i want to continue with my main account with good editing nature, please unblock me User:Banadea

Pranamqwe (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Lying about your sock accounts won't help your cause. Even without the lie, you'd have a lot of explaining to do here. "Mistakes" isn't even close. Huon (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2019 (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.

Note to reviewing administrator: This user edit warred and vandalized, was blocked, and returned with multiple socks to continue edit warring and vandalizing. Further, they were already ban-evading. I recommend automatically declining any unblock requests from this user as they are very, very clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia.--Jorm (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is either Nsmutte or a tribute act, TPA and email revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]