User talk:SwagLevelHigh

Welcome!

Hello, SwagLevelHigh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking

SwagLevelHigh (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much for welcoming me. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hello, I declined the speedy deletion you placed on Prajakta Koli, as you did not provide a valid speedy deletion criteria. "Not enough references" is a rationale that would be acceptable with a Proposed Deletion tag or a full Articles for Deletion discussion. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Logan Paul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service Awards on UserPage

Hi, regarding this edit I think in the template, {{service awards|year=2018|month=1|day=16|edits=157|format=medal}} You need to put your joining date in YYYY MM DD format. no need to count number of months and days every time. You did it right for the year but got confused for month and days I think. You only need to update the edit count as an when you feel it is needed. Good luck. --DBig Xray 14:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah Thanks !! SwagLevelHigh (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed user

Please stop repeating your request to be a confirmed user. You were automatically confirmed months ago. Confirmation is really no big deal, an you have it already anyway, so repeating these requests won’t change anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: H.D. Jain Collage (May 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:H.D. Jain Collage and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:H.D. Jain Collage, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SwagLevelHigh! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: H.D. Jain Collage (May 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KJP1 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Sourced only to itself. Nothing independent and nothing significant.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:H.D. Jain Collage and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:H.D. Jain Collage, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KJP1 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:H.D. Jain Collage has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:H.D. Jain Collage. Thanks! joe decker ^talk 22:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joginder Tiwari (May 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 1997kB was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joginder Tiwari and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Joginder Tiwari, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Luke Kenny (May 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

How does he meet WP:NACTOR

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Luke Kenny and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Luke Kenny, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I declined it as you don't show any evidence of him meeting WP:NACTOR Gbawden (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Jason Shah. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jason Shah (May 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Already covered in the show's article

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jason Shah and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jason Shah, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joginder Tiwari (June 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dial911 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joginder Tiwari and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Joginder Tiwari, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dial911 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joginder Tiwari (August 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 was:

bio

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joginder Tiwari and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Joginder Tiwari, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SamHolt6 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jason Shah (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has been resubmitted without change after being declined, which appears to be gaming the system. If this draft is resubmitted without significant change yet again, it will be nominated for deletion.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jason Shah and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jason Shah, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joginder Tiwari (October 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The references are all wrong, they imply he writes his own news articles. Please fix.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joginder Tiwari and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Joginder Tiwari, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i'll keep improving the page SwagLevelHigh (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You used the {{Admin help}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Admin help}} tag when you have done so, and in a while an administrator will be along to help.

I need help of admin. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SwagLevelHigh, you've got the template OK now? (Me not admin, just checking) Hope you are well though! ——SerialNumber54129 20:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks SwagLevelHigh (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question or issue that requires the attention of an administrator? If so, please articulate it at the time of requesting help. Mkdw ^talk 23:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bihar invitation

Hello! SwagLevelHigh,

On behalf of WikiProject Bihar, I am inviting you to join our WikiProject. WikiProject Bihar is a project, aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to the state of Bihar. If you are not a member already, you can add your name here. If are already a member, disregard this message. Thank you. -- Pratyush (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I would love to join wikibihar project SwagLevelHigh (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock my account

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I am SwagLevelHigh I don't know why I am blocked please unblock my account if I have done anything wrong please, I will never do in future.

Decline reason:

Thank you for confirming that you previously used the PremSean account. Doing so makes the process easier for both you and us.

There are two obstacles to unblocking this account. First, you are required to appeal on your main account. For users with confirmed sockpuppetry, we additionally require six months where you stay away from Wikipedia and disclose all of your accounts. (That means you don't try to edit Wikipedia, through any account or IP address, and you don't ask anyone else to edit Wikipedia on your behalf.)

Second, and just as importantly, the edits you've made on this account do violate Wikipedia policy. See WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI. You've repeatedly recreated Manish Kishore and Jogendra Tiwari/Joginder Tiwari. Please see WP:NBIO and the links above for more information about why those are unacceptable. In order for your account to be unblocked at any point, you'll need to demonstrate an understanding of those Wikipedia policies and commit to not editing in areas that you have a conflict of interest.

Please also know that each attempt that you make to evade detection makes it less likely that you will be unblocked in the future. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:47, 9 November 2018 (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.

SwagLevelHigh (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked as a sockpuppet of PremSean (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please unblock my account, I know I have done some vandalism previously on that account, because I didn't know how to edit Wikipedia on that time, but now I have learnt it, I have been editing on this account for 10 months and done more than 650+ edits, and I have not done any edit against Wikipedia rules and regulations with this account please unblock my account, you can check my edit history I have not done anything wrong with this account, please unblock my account or my work on Wikipedia for 10 months will be wasted. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is incorrect. This was disruptive (changing sourced information into something that goes against the source and using a misleading edit summary), as was this; this introduces overlinking (to the inappropriate article you have created so many times that it's now protected from creation), and those are all among the very last edits you did before becoming blocked. You may not be vandalising intentionally, but your edits are disruptive because they violate Wikipedia policies. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I don't did that intentionally, try to understand. I know that if I will make mistake then I'm gonna be blocked then why do I make that mistake. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock account

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I know I have done some mistakes previously, I will promise you I will never do it in future, please give me one last chance, I can't request unblock from my main account because I don't remember their password and email of that account, so I'm requesting you to please unblock my account, I have invested my 10 months on Wikipedia editing. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Six months with zero edits, before you are eligible for unblock consideration, as has been pointed out to you above. Yamla (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2018 (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.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SwagLevelHigh. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24011 was submitted on Feb 20, 2019 16:20:53. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me SwagLevelHigh (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You apparent inability to accept or understand what you've been told repeatedly about waiting six months is reason enough on its own not to do so. It's been explained to you at least three times at this point. Up until now it seems folks have been nice enough not to count these unblock requests as resettting the six-month timer, which is just a courtesy and not a hard-and-fast guarantee anyway, so it would really, really be in your best interest to stop posting here until at least the ninth of May. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I was punished to not edit Wikipedia for 6 months and my 6 month punishment finished on 9th of may 2019, so please unblock my account and give me my chance so I can edit wikipedia. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Socking as recently as March. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:34, 13 May 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.

I believe that you're referring to the standard offer when you talk about not editing Wikipedia for six months. If so, the matter will be discussed on the proper noticeboard and the community given an opportunity to comment and weigh in. If a consensus is reached to unblock you, then you'll be unblocked. I'm going to leave this request for another administrator to handle and start a discussion with, since I was the blocking administrator. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SwagLevelHigh (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied your request to the administrators' noticeboard; however it is likely to be denied since you are making this appeal from a sock account. Is there a good reason why you are not making an appeal from your original account? Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - you were using User:Hemlatakumari977 as recently as March, so the earliest you can apply for the Standard Offer is September 2nd. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to email of my first account User:PremSean , so I am not able to recover password and I don't know about User:Hemlatakumari977 SwagLevelHigh (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblocking of account

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).

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

Request reason:

I applied for unblocking of my account 6 months back but got rejected because someone from my device tried to do sockpuppeting, I was told to re apply again on 2nd spetember 2019, So I'm re applying again for unblocking of my account, I did some mistake in back when I didn't knew about Wikipedia policy now I've studied all about Wikipedia policy, I promise to not repeat my mistake again, thanks

Decline reason:

"I did some mistake" isn't going to cut it. You need to discuss specifics of what you were doing wrong and what you would do differently if unblocked. 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 2 September 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.

Request for unblocking of account

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for vandalism of multiple pages, Sockpuppeting and recreating deleted articles & I did with multiple devices and accounts, I didn't knew the rules of When I was doing this, now I have read all the rules & regulations of Wikipedia, And I promise to not repeat my mistakes again, I have been blocked for 1 years, first time I was blocked for 6 months and told not to edit Wikipedia but I mistakenly did some, and then they extended my unblock request period, I was told to request again after september 2nd 2019, So give me another chance, so I can contribute to wikipedia, and I promise not to repeat my mistakes again, Thanks

Decline reason:

"I didn't knew the rules of When I was doing this" yes you did. You knew the rules perfectly well, having previously been blocked for violating them. If you are so incapable of behaving yourself that you would accidentally set up an account and accidentally, but knowingly, use that account to evade your block, you are so breathtakingly incompetent that we cannot unblock you. Indeed, WP:CIR is a serious concern here, given your generally poor editing across multiple accounts. Now, I'm not saying you can't be unblocked, but you need to stop coming up with laughably bad excuses. Address your bad behaviour, including your knowing violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE, and including your generally poor editing, including but not limited to editing about Prem Shandilya and Manish Kishore, your page moves that are disruptive, and your repeated recreation of various articles that have no place here. If you continue to claim this was all an accident, or that you didn't know the rules, there's nothing more to be done here. Yamla (talk) 21:51, 14 September 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.

Uggh, you appear to be Premlesnar007, blocked all the way back in 2016. This means you've literally been a problem for more than three years across no fewer than ten accounts. This wasn't just one or two accounts, but ten. Note that WP:SO is very rarely granted for such persistent vandals as yourself and you'll need a massively more convincing unblock request to be unblocked. Indeed, it's probably already the case that we should consider you banned under WP:3X, though I haven't checked to be sure. If so, no administrator has the power to lift your block and we'd need to take the decision to the community. That is, please write an unblock request that you wish taken to the community. You'll need to address your years-long attacks on Wikipedia and explain how exactly your future behaviour would differ from your past behaviour. You have one last chance to address this directly and honestly. If I see any more garbage like the unblock request above, I'm shutting down your talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, My name is Prem Shandilya (18 Years Old), I have been editing Wikipedia from last 3 years, and I have done some massive mistakes in past, I have vandalised pages, done unnecessary page moves, created multiple accounts to edit after getting blocked and tried to recreate the pages which has no place in wikipedia, if you see my past edits from my multiple accounts, I have done very poor edits, I created multiple accounts after getting blocked from one and never checked why I was blocked and created many accounts to edit coz I had no idea that I was making these big mistakes, I accept these mistakes and asking for forgiveness, I started learning editing after I created this account User:SwagLevelHigh and started to learn the rules, after that I realised that I had made many big mistakes in the past for which I am asking for forgiveness, this is my last chance to request for the unblock, I have been requesting for the unblock of this account from last year, after this I won't to able to make any further requests, please unblock my account so I can contribute to wikipedia, and I promise to not repeat such mistake again in my future, if i get unblocked, i will not move pages myself I will request for it because I'm very bad in deciding which page to move, and also never make any other account, and please delete all my old accounts (if possible) coz I have no access to that account, I don't remember the password or email of those account so I cannot delete those account myself, and also i will never move my drafts / sandbox pages to main article I will always ask for review, and never vandalise any pages, and always research before doing anything new from my wikipedia account, I realised all my mistakes and asking for forgiveness and promise to not repeat such mistakes again, this is my last chance to request, so please give me one last chance so, I can prove that I learned from my mistakes, Thank you SwagLevelHigh (talk) 8:48 pm, 14 September 2019, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

Decline reason:

You keep claiming you didn't know you were making mistakes. The evidence is there for anyone to see that numerous other users told you what you were doing wrong and you ignored them so that is provably false. And this account's contributions were awful even after you claim to have figured out what you were doing wrong. It seems clear that you are simply not a good fit for editing on this project, and I am therefore both declining this request and revoking your ability to edit this talk page. Any further appeals will need to be made via WP:UTRS, but be aware they will need to be a lot better than this or that avenue of appeal can be cut off as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 16 September 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.

I'm going to echo what was said above, if it is actualy true that you "had no idea that I was making these big mistakes" then you probably shouldn't be allowed to edit here regardless. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea before that I was making these big mistakes, but now I have realised and I have read all rules and will never make any mistakes in future if I get a chance. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be stating you lack sufficient competence to edit here. If this is what you wish to claim, please say so. --Yamla (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not perfect but I can edit Wikipedia, without breaking any rules, when I was making those mistakes, I didn't knew that time that I was breaking rules, because I had no experience before, but I think I can edit Wikipedia now, if I get another chance. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]