User talk:Urbantown/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Urbantown. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Urbantown, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
|
Hi Urbantown!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi |
This page was deleted because it was created User:Dormantos, who was a sockpuppet of someone evading a block (WP:CSD#G5). That doesn't say anything about the notability of the subject, and you are welcome to write an article about this person yourself, it won't be deleted for that reason. Hut 8.5 15:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Reply Ping@Hut 8.5 Iwould like to recreate the article.!!!! But I would be glad if I can have a glimpse of the earlier version of the article. Maybe that could fit as well.!!! You can restore that article to any subpage on my user account instead of making it public. :) :) Urbantown (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't restore the article to your userspace, it would still qualify for deletion there and your user subpages are public (anyone can see them). I have sent you an email with the contents of the article instead. If you decide to recreate the page then please don't just use what was there before, you need to write something in your own words. Hut 8.5 12:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Saachi Soni for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saachi Soni is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saachi Soni until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC) |
Urbantown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I can hear something hammered purposefully for no reasons.!!!!! Two days on Wikipedia and screwed for no reasons at all.!!!! I do not understand the checkuser process at all except for bitting new comers.!!! Wikipedia seems to become the private encyclopedia to a large bunch of losers (admins) who consider themselves happy in bitting the new comers and isolating as well.!!!! You call this account used for illegitimate purposes??? Seriously!!!!! Well nice way to express your worthless powers Bbb23 !!!! Urbantown (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Requests that include attacks of uses are not considered.only (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2015 (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.
Urbantown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I apologize for being too sharp in my earlier block appeal!!!! Please specify the reason for block by the check user.!!! You have the full fledge to block me I am disrupting Wikipedia or not abiding any important policies. :) And if my contributions are healthy for encyclopedia then please unblock me!!! :) I feel a bit thrown away now!!! :( I expect a complete study of my profile before declining the request... :) Urbantown (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts, as described in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjoy64. You'll need to address that in any unblock request. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:04, 20 April 2015 (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.
Urbantown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sir, I am aware of the fact that I am being accused at the SPI.!!! But to clarify at least, I do have any connection with Sanjoy64 neither online nor offline!!! I neither have anything to do with his nonsense here!!! I am not evading any blocks at the moment!!! The thing that frustrates me is that even though I know I have no connections at all with that fellow, I am being dragged for no reason.!!! I am a new editor to Wikipedia and never want to indulge in activities that harm the interest of this constructive community.!!! I keep my words.. Trust me sir, disrupting Wikipedia makes no sense to me at all.. I am a bachelor and a regular reader at Wikipedia since many years and took up the job of editing recently. If anything goes against pplicies let me know and I will definitely act upon it in the best possible manner.. If my account is unblocked I will help Wikipedia further with more constructive articles on Indian Notable Personalities.. :) Urbantown (talk) 8:52 am, Today (UTC+1)
Decline reason:
Technical and behavioural evidence are both far more convincing than this unblock appeal. Yunshui 雲水 11:49, 20 April 2015 (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 do you mean by technical and behavioural evidences??!!! My no edits match with that fellow at all as per user compare report.!!! I think I have been very clear in describing my problem in this appeal.!
- ) i would like to.know what kind of behavior you expect from a person who is being accused for no valid reason and being swirled again and again without specifying the matter at all.!!! I do not know what's makes me so close to that fellow Sanjoy64. And for the Technical Evidence I must say that my contributions are way too better and helpful to Wikipedia than Sanjoy64 who is accused for repitative Disruptive Editing.!!! Please check my account thoroughly with a fresh mind , I think that would give you a solution Yunshui and jpgordon sir.. :) Urbantown (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Urbantown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What do you mean by technical and behavioural evidences??!!! My no edits match with that fellow at all as per user compare report.!!! I think I have been very clear in describing my problem in this appeal.! :) i would like to.know what kind of behavior you expect from a person who is being accused for no valid reason and being swirled again and again without specifying the matter at all.!!! I do not know what's makes me so close to that fellow Sanjoy64. And for the Technical Evidence I must say that my contributions are way too better and helpful to Wikipedia than Sanjoy64 who is accused for repitative Disruptive Editing.!!! Please check my account thoroughly with a fresh mind , I think that would give you a solution Yunshui and jpgordon sir.. :) Urbantown (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Earlier Unblock Appeal: Sir, I am aware of the fact that I am being accused at the SPI.!!! But to clarify at least, I do have any connection with Sanjoy64 neither online nor offline!!! I neither have anything to do with his nonsense here!!! I am not evading any blocks at the moment!!! The thing that frustrates me is that even though I know I have no connections at all with that fellow, I am being dragged for no reason.!!! I am a new editor to Wikipedia and never want to indulge in activities that harm the interest of this constructive community.!!! I keep my words.. Trust me sir, disrupting Wikipedia makes no sense to me at all.. I am a bachelor and a regular reader at Wikipedia since many years and took up the job of editing recently. If anything goes against pplicies let me know and I will definitely act upon it in the best possible manner.. If my account is unblocked I will help Wikipedia further with more constructive articles on Indian Notable Personalities.. :)
Decline Reason:Technical and behavioural evidence are both far more convincing than this unblock appeal. Yunshui 雲水 11:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Even without the technical evidence, comparing your editing history with that of another account makes it totally clear that you are not an independent new editor. Add the technical evidence as well, and there is far more than enough evidence. Since you keep posting unblock requests that don't add anything new, and since each one wastes the time of an administrator who has to check the editing history of various accounts in order to asses the request, your talk page access will now be removed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (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.