User talk:Tubslubeamorepersempre

Edit warring

Stop edit warring and use the talk `page to explain what you are doing, I don't think your removing info is improving the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RichardWeiss edit warring did not begin yet, and what was removed?--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about my edit on Alok Sharma. And you removed the fact that he is a member of the tory party from the opening. Why did you do that? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness then go and add that back but do not revert the entire contribution which was an improvement:--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Happy now? Hope so.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tubslubeamorepersempre. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 23 August 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).

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

Request reason:

First of all I apologise for creating and using those accounts. However, they were not used for editing a specific article, as other sockpuppets do, thus not I wouldn't consider them as illegitimate. In fact no sockpuppet investigation was brought (the checkuser created one after having a check on me with the CU tool). While editing an article, a random check was made by the checkuser, and hence I've been blocked by the same checkuser and then . I had a look through the pages of other users with multiple accounts, and I've found out that most of the users get blocked for 1 month (their main account), while the other sock accounts get permanently blocked. I've been blocked indefinitely nevertheless, and that's my first time. Could the length of my block be reduced? Thank you.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The very first three accounts I checked showed two of them edited Aurangzeb. The next set showed an overlap on Medieval India. I didn't even get through the 'b's. I then stopped looking; you've clearly been violating WP:SOCK. Also, seriously, what the heck? That's an awful lot of accounts there. Yamla (talk) 21:31, 27 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that there are too many accounts, but again I apologise. This was the first time and none ever warned before. I won't do it anymore. The checkuser is always available, so in the case i violate the regulations, i can be blocked again, and won't edit wikipedia. I promise. Being permanently blocked is too much, especially being the 1st block. Can I be unblocked or can the block be reduced to one month just like other users that violated WP:SOCK, since initially many sockpuppet's main accounts are blocked for one month? Can I be given a last chance? Thank you Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your farm of socks pushed a consistent point of view, adding blatant falsehoods to multiple articles in the process, including such seemingly unrelated ones as Napoleon. Cleaning up after you will require a major effort. The sockpuppetry seems aimed at evading scrutiny for all your POV-pushing. I see no reason to unblock you. Huon (talk) 20:27, 28 August 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.

You are not permitted to remove existing declines for currently active blocks. Please don't do that again. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, sorry, did not want to remove it. The second one was not appearing, as you can see from my edits, so somehow it was removed--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock discussion

What possible reason did you have for editing from so many accounts?

Nice try on the argument to not block indefinitely, but I'll bet the ones you referenced did not sock as extensively as you have.

Check users don't randomly run checks. That won't fly. They also don't reveal all their cards.

I had to look at your talk page history, but I see a number of concerns have been raised. There are a number of talk page entries that were made by now blocked users. This fascinates me.

There are other items that fascinate me.

I need a lot more before I could even think of considering unblocking you.-- Deep fried okra 19:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Deepfriedokra, thanks for considering at least. Any considerations will be appreciated. I will not create any more accounts.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you could answer my question. It was not rhetorical.-- Deep fried okra 21:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Deepfriedokra: I'm guessing you've already looked at this talk page thread The subsequent RFCN was even stranger. See here. He never showed. Perhaps he was too embarrassed. His defenders at the RFCN though were a singular bunch. Such sticklers they were to their own rules and compulsions that commonsense and wisdom had no meaning in their court. I let it go, but I never believed his user name was accidental. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, hadn't seen that. Can't argue with consensus. I am concerned with the socking.-- Deep fried okra 00:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm even more concerned with the POV-pushing that descends into outright falsehoods. Huon (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And there you have it.-- Deep fried okra 08:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professor, the name was accidental. But I have never seen that report, today is the first time, and why should i have been embarassed? Wow, such a big converstation about my name and i was not even aware of that, but as we spoke earlier I knew you did make a report but i cudn't find, you remember. As for the Mughal Empire, i think this should be written was an early-modern empire centralised around almost the entire South Asia. Nowhere is mentioned about its size i.e. one of the 3 largest ever.

@Deepfriedokra: Your name is also funny, I also like deep fried okra with tomato, some restaurants of Taj Hotel provide so. What possible reason did you have for editing from so many accounts? Just like others, I thought it was ok, didn't know that it is like a big crime in wikipedia. Wikipedia should be for adding or removing contents, why do we need investigations, arbitrations, noticeboards, it wastes too much time here online. Better to join military or work with the judiciary or police forces. There are a number of talk page entries that were made by now blocked users. You mean user comeonduckling and pryansh90? Why is it fascinating? i had some issues with one of them. I was not like them. What else? Can I be unblocked please? Or at least be blocked for a while? I will not create anymore accounts. I wanna use wikipedia.

Huon Falsehoods? I always add reliable sources. Don't mention that again.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reliable source for the "Tippu Sultan was a freedom fighter" part, and it's not true by any stretch of the imagination. I'm slowly going through your sock farm's contributions and am reverting most of them. Don't even get me started on the biographical article where you apparently disliked the image so much that you replaced it by an image of someone else. Huon (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, everyone knows that, he is the first indian freedom fighter. And why are you reverting to a muslim enemy of the British,, what does that even mean? Here you go some other sources 1 2, 3, 4 etc. And dont tell me what is true or not, you are not indian. And nope the picture is disputed, some says it belong to him. They have the same surname. Many articles and websites still use that image.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote one of your own sources: "Public opinion in England considered him a vicious tyrant, while modern Indian nationalists have hailed him as a freedom fighter, but both views are the products of wishful thinking." I don't think I need to say more. I also don't need to be Indian to recognize POV-pushing, it's not as if Indians have a monopoly on the truth. And regarding the image in the Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji article, that's File:Sultan Alauddin Khalji.jpg which depicts Alauddin Khalji, who decidedly is not the same person s Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji. If there were any possibility of confusion, it's avoided by the caption right in the image: "Sultan Ala-Ouddine Khildji (1295)". In 1295 Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji had been dead for quite some time. Huon (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Ranjit Singh was Sandhawalia Jat

Whay you edit fake link are you mad ? Ranjit Singh222 (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]