User talk:Showbiz826

August 2020

Hello, I'm Nnadigoodluck. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Chahamanas of Shakambhari—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Showbiz826, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Showbiz826! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello, I'm Alivardi. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rana Sanga, but you didn't provide a reliable source. Note that online blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ravensfire. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rajput have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please read WP:BRD - you're in an editing dispute on multiple articles and you need to start using the article talk page to discuss the edits, not just reverting over and over. That's called edit-warring and it can lead to a block. Ravensfire (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Showbiz826! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Ravensfire (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alert for India/Pakistan/Afghanistan related articles

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.

Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm leaving this alert on multiple other editors to make sure everyone is aware that editor behavior is closely watched on these articles. Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Prithviraj Chauhan. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Greyjoy^talk 09:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page 449 matched the quote u removed.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rajput, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Also i checked that page 449 contain the quote u removed as preview is not available this is the only way to verify Heba Aisha (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Prithviraj Chauhan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The edit summary you left when making this edit is entirely unacceptable. You can expect to be blocked from editing if you do that again. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above message - your citation method makes it very difficult for other editors to verify the content you are adding. You are just providing a URL to an archived copy of a book - use the Cite Book template (which is very easy to do, using the 'Cite' menu above the editing window), and provide author, publisher, date, title and, most importantly, page numbers, so that people can see whether the source supports the content. You can't expect people the read the whole book to check your content. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rana Sanga, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mughal and Gujrat. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Prithviraj Chauhan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page to get consensus when your block ends. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked over your contribution history and edit comments such as this one are not acceptable. You almost never use the talk page (and remove your comments after you do), accuse others of bias, and are generally combative. I'm extending your block to a week for WP:NPA reasons but do note that you will be indefinitely blocked if this continues after the block ends. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been using socks. Not a good idea. I'm not going to extend your block but please note that this is not a path you want to go down. Wait out the week, come back, and edit colleagially. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 21:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Showbiz826 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Wikipedia community My block is already 20 days Old now And i seriously realize all my mistakes Done in past I knew there are certain Proper rules through which Wikipedia policy is maintained i voiltaed them,I can give u strong Confidence that i wont repeat this in future neither creating Various accounts,I know now why i was blocked and i Do realize my mistakes please Forgive Also i think block is no Longer neccesary So Now Please now give me 1 final chance to return and make contribution Please dont dissapoint me again,I will only make productive edits without edit warring 🙏🙏.Showbiz826 (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've gone out of your way to demonstrate you have no intention of following our policies and guidelines, and were evading your block less than two hours ago. There, you said, "Cant understand why i was blocked at name of shock puppet only thing i did was just adding better refrences about battles and wikipedia block me What the shit. Ok Done I am not intersted either too.Fuck off". Given your continued refusal, I think the best chance for you is to apply under WP:SO. That requires six months with zero edits, zero edits with any accounts. That would demonstrate you are willing to stick to your word. At that point, you'd also need to address the other problems you have demonstrated. Yamla (talk) 11:58, 8 September 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.

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).

Showbiz826 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Extremely Sorry 🙏🙏🙏 For such Words Please dont give me a 6 month exile guys i seriously know i commited blunders But Please i learnt from the mistakes atleast Give me 1 last chance to revert my mistakes by unblocking my account and giving me edit prievilages.I request and assure to follow every policy and only make Productive edits,Please its a request if i do anything wrong again Please block me but Now Deep applogy and Full Assurance to edit only productivly within Wikipedia Limits.Please revert it Full assurance of No Shock puppets or anything like This Please its a request🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 Showbiz826 (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to show us that you can abide by policies first. Your prior actions have led to a loss of trust, which is very hard to get back. You can start by observing the standard offer process. I think it is extremely unlikely you will find an administrator to unblock you immediately. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 8 September 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.

Evading your block via dynamic IPs is not a sound strategy to getting unblocked. Your range is now blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Showbiz826 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello i think my Ban is over 1 month now its no longer i can promise to not do edit warring on wikipedia again and instead do only productive edits please give me 1 more chance and if u still don't want to give please tell me i will switch to ever reliable enclyopedia brittanica Showbiz826 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Continued block evasion. Talk page access revoked to prevent further time-wasting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:31, 18 September 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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS 35908

UTRS appeal #35908 is now closed. My reply is posted below.

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reasons for your block. As you do not understand the reasons for your block, you cannot avoid the problems that led to blocking. Due to the reasons for your being blocked, you are not eligible for unblock consideration for six months after the revocation of your talk page access-- till March 18, 2021. You might consider constructive, collegial, non disruptive edits on other Wikimedia projects and other language Wikipedias during that time to show that you can do so. As you are not eligible for consideration of unblocking until March 2021, I am revoking your access to UTRS for five months. At that time, you must address all of the reasons you were blocked and describe what you would do instead.

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 41454 declined

UTRS appeal #41454 has been declined.Your block appeal has been reviewed and we are unable to unblock you at this time. However, you may wish to make use of our "standard offer", which provides a route back to editing for users subject to indefinite blocks. The guidelines for the Standard Offer are simple: 1. Wait six months without sockpuppetry. That means no editing the English Wikipedia, under this account or any other, for six months. 2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. You must show us that you understand what went wrong and know how to keep it from happening again. 3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons for the Wikipedia community to object to a return. If, at the end of six months, you've adhered to these conditions, you may then contact an administrator off-wiki or via the Unblock Request System and request that the community discuss unblocking you. Please see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_offer for full details about the Standard Offer. The content of this email is adapted from information provided there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socky McSocksock

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showbiz826/Archive#10 October 2021 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #59161

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]