User talk:Qwertywander

Qwertywander, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Qwertywander! 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 Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 21:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

@Huon: @Yamla:I am the user @Riticon: whose talk page access was revoked without any reason. The edits weren't problematic. Have a look at the edit history again and my addition as well: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Chutiya_Kingdom). Do you see anyone except the user named Sitush who has been trying to cancel my edits without any authentic reason?? It was just that I had used a new account to edit each time. Have a look at it properly. I have stated the sources very clearly. Being blocked shouldn't be an excuse for preventing properly sourced information to be added to the page. Even if I am unable to edit, it's fine. But, kindly add the new sourced contents, as it will only contribute constructively towards the article. Otherwise, tell me what action should I take to get myself unbanned. I have never vandalised any article. Whatever I have added has always been well sourced. My only fault was that I had tried to evade blocks. I am extremely sorry for that. Qwertywander (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, talk page access obviously hasn't been revoked or you wouldn't have been able to post this. Secondly, "My only fault was that I had tried to evade blocks. I am extremely sorry for that." - I would be a little more inclined to believe this if you hadn't made the same comment from multiple accounts. See WP:SOCK for why that's not helping your case. Being blocked means that there were severe problems with your contributions that you need to address in order to be welcome to edit again. Thus, when you haven't addressed those problems, shown that you understand them and convincingly explained what you'll do to avoid them in the future, ie when you haven't been unblocked, any further contributions that you make will be presumed to share those problems and can be reverted on sight. Furthermore, editors who reverted you didn't just do so because you shouldn't have made those edits in the first place but also pointed out that the edits in their own right were problematic. Thus I have to conclude that you are unable to see why your contributions are unhelpful. At this point, I would expect the only possible way forward is a combination of the standard offer - no edits to the English Wikipedia for six months, no block evasion, no sockpuppetry - and an agreement to adhere to a topic ban from Chutiya-related topics, widely construed, afterwards. Please note that this, too, is not a guarantee - and as noted above, you'll still have to show that you understand why your edits aren't helpful and how your future contributions will differ; "time served" won't be enough - but anything else is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Huon (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You say the talk page access was revoked for the user Riticon without reason. Are you freaking kidding me? WP:EVADE. WP:EVADE. Let me say again, WP:EVADE. Other than that, I echo what Huon said. You have zero chance of being unblocked while you continue to evade your block, or even while you try to get others to edit on behalf of you, while you are blocked. Your only chance is to show us you understand the serious problems with your behaviour. Which means no more accounts, ever, and no more edits, zero edits, for the next six months at least. And then a detailed explanation of your behaviour so we know you won't repeat them again. --Yamla (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: @Yamla:Thx for listening to me. I will make sure that I do as you ask me to do. However, I want to make it clear that I was banned at the start for just adding content(sourced) in one of the articles named "Buranjis". My edit wasn't agreed by some other editors. But, I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia policy back then, so I insisted with my edit on that page (Buranji). The rest of the additions didn't have any vandalism involved. It was just that I had added content from multiple accounts that my edits were treated as acts of vandalism and sock-puppetry. You can check this out here: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qwertywander/Archive)

Every edit you make while evading a block is, by definition, problematic. --Yamla (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)