Snowsleeping

Notice

Hello, I'm User:TheNewSMG. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions at Chandra Nandini because it did not appear constructive. If you would like 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! TheNewSMG (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC) TheNewSMG (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Shut up you idiot. If you ever have seen hindi TV serials you would understand what I did.

Excuse me but I do not like the way I am being treated. If you have a problem please post it on the talk page of the article which can be found at Talk: Chandra Nandini. TheNewSMG (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No fuck off you bitch ass ugly cunt stupid piece of shit that knows nothing.

Caution

Please be aware that you can be blocked for personal attacks if you use bad language on talk pages, such as 'shut up you idiot'. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chandra Nandini. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thanks. TheNewSMG (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Your recent editing history at Chandra Nandini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Chandra Nandini, personal attacks

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Personal attacks at this link. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsleeping. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Warning

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsleeping. Thank you. TheNewSMG (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per the rationale provided at SPI. You have repeatedly altered the codes in an SPI report in order to forestall an investigation of your suspected misbehavior. This follows a nasty personal attack. And all this in less than 10 days of Wikipedia editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am very apologetic for making personal attacks to a person and edit warring the chandra nandini article. I am also very sorry for making disruptive edits on my sock puppet investigation case. Since I have been caught I will be honest, I am the creator of akash aman akku which is my second account but I have no ties with the ip address that you people suspected. Please unblock me I promise I will make good edits from now on. Snowsleeping (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's no reasonable chance of an unblock in the near future. I suggest your best chance is WP:SO which requires zero edits (under any account) for at least six months. However, I'm very concerned that you are not in fact a new user and that this is actually just an alternate for an earlier account. If that's true, you aren't eligible for unblock consideration here at all. Yamla (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2017 (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.

Look I am sorry for what I have done but please give me a chance I promise I will make good edits. And to answer your question I am a new user and this is my original account I just learn things fast. I did a research while I was blocked on a few tools and functions of wikipedia.

If we should now assume that User:Akash Aman akku is the same person as User:Snowsleeping we ought to be alarmed about the single edit which was made by that account: here at Chandra Nandini. The proposed new text is completely garbled. This ought to make us reflect about WP:Competence is required. He is adding something about the periodic table to an article about an Indian TV series, while deleting most of the previous article text. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My reasoning on why I put the periodic table was because I purposely wanted to destroy the chandra nandini article. I used the periodic table as a random false information so I could delete the correct information on the article and post this random information.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Second chance please. Already admitted my mistakes. Snowsleeping (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:57, 23 August 2017 (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.