User talk:Vikram Q1W2

Talk page

Ref used

Hi [[User:Vikram_Q1W2],

Where have you added this link in the Kayastha page?

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-d9IAvFOUHsC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=%22the+kayasthas+as+defacto+independent+rulers%22&source=bl&ots=OG77uuj6o8&sig=ACfU3U08gm-ZJSz4CwXR14TUuvFxzu34-A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXwJbezqfpAhUPzTgGHaeiBlMQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ

I searched for it but it seems that you haven't. Dinopce (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vikram_Q1W2 Dinopce (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Glen (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2020 (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).

Vikram Q1W2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is wrong. I am trying to help. Instead, that user:Fylindfotberserk called me names unnecessarily. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 13:30, 19 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.

Blocked again

You have been blocked for a week for continued personal attacks[1] and for trying to find out a user's real life identity at User talk:2409:4063:4D9E:4EAD:1F0A:FFF4:8015:4A6 and at the top of this page, which is a serious matter. What did you intend to use such information for? There has already been too much real-life harassment of editors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 14:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No. I stand by my actions. If they invite blocks, so be it. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Check it. I was the one who suggested Flyingberserk to file an SPI against the IPs from North India and Nikhil Sirvastava. I did not evade any block. I dont have that much time. Also all my edits were in good faith to not let anyone make personal attacks against each other without proof. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Block evasion, as you did at User talk:Fylindfotberserk. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 12:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. Glen (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexf, User:Glen What block evasion? I was blocked for 31 hours. I waited for it to expire. Then I made a few edits protesting against personal attacks and others when I was unblocked. Due to which User:Bishonen blocked me for a week. I replied on my talk page. I was waiting for this block to expire. What are you talking about block evasion? Check my edit history again. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying you are not using IP Addresses from an ISP in India to do this? That may be, although the editing is suspicious. We can test by paging a Checkuser. @Zzuuzz: - @Glen: -- Alexf^(talk) 14:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexf, pure coincidence that the IP is also posting to my talk page at the exact same time. Quack quack. Glen (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Check it. I was the one who suggested Flyingberserk to file an SPI against the IPs from North India and Nikhil Sirvastava. I did not evade any block. I dont have that much time. Also all my edits were in good faith to not let anyone make personal attacks against each other without proof. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexf and Glen: Hi everyone. I don't pretend to know exactly what's going on here, but having examined the histories of User_talk:Glen and User talk:Fylindfotberserk, and this page, I'd say that that's someone else. That is also to say, I don't see Vikram Q1W2 evading a block in recent times. CU results are notoriously lacking in some respects, so this comes with the usual disclaimer, however I think what I've said could be described as likely. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz, thanks zzuuzz. Well Bish's original block is still valid for several days. In the meantime Vikram you are welcome to request an unblock. I stand by an indef based on the repeated personal attacks we know you have made and your response that you have stated you "stand by your actions". Happy to be proven wrong of course and this block can be lifted at any time based on your request. Glen (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:zzuuzz Thanks a lot. also since you are it, can you check and close this case also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nikhil_Srivastava Also someone owes me an apology User:Alexf, User:Glen. I will not tag user:Flyingberserk here because only true gentlmen will accept their mistakes. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't push it. In fact, I've just noticed that you're a confirmed sock of User:Sahar Sultana. I guess all offers are voided. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No no, go ahead. You have my blessings. Just avoid false accusations like others. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I might just start an SPI here. We'll continue with User:Sheeba Aisha

Confirmed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipage Citecheck (talk · contribs)
Sheeba Asia (talk · contribs)

You don't want to just give me a list of accounts, do you? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. On the balance of probabilities these are also at least related:

Someone stop me when they recognise it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz, thanks for clearing this up. I think we're probably done here :) I'd say it's time for a {{checkuser block}} but I'm guessing the above speaks for itself. Thanks again. Glen (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go on with your misinformation. It is very amusing, for you, I believe. But still you have not closed the original case that I asked you to look into and absolve me of the false accusations:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nikhil_Srivastava

Instead you have started to spin your own script here. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]