User talk:Saichana

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Saichana, 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! Toddy1 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information[edit]

Are you the same person as Abhimanyu_Yaduvanshi8287? - Toddy1 (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a mess of article talk pages and in some cases adding nonsense sections, eg a section heading 'N' whose only contents is 'J'[edit]

What in the world was that supposed to mean? Section headings and content should be meaningful for a start, J is not content. Nor is "Add useful information". This is an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide or a directory, see WP:NOT. Yes, our articles on Indian villages can be pretty dreadful, but you're not helping. And Ghazipur is a pretty good article. Articles should not include "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc" If "notable politicians' have their own articles showing they meet our criteria for notability at WP:NOTABILITY and related pages, sure, they can be there, otherwise no. No, we don't want the names of non-notable roads or the length of highways or the number of airport. Or a list of banks, hospitals, etc. Nor do all the individual requests do anything but make a mess. Why not one section with a few helpful and detailed suggestions although with sources that comply with WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other links you should read instead of filling up talk pages with useless requests: WP:NOT, especially WP:DIRECTORY. I reverted the pointless edits you made to Talk:Chandauli district; if you persist in doing that to other talk pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for for continuing to make exactly the same disruptive edits you were just warned about, as you did at Talk:Saidpur, Ghazipur. 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 ~~~~}}. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 4 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Respected Sir, though my some edits may be diruptive but I have made many productive edits and demand on 'yadav' article. Please, unblock me listen my demand on page 'yadav'. Thanks Saichana (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock request doesn't address the reasons the block was imposed. Please also note that Wikipedia has female administrators, so sexist unblock requests like this are also a bad idea. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 5 April 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.

(Note: Template fixed at 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:58, 5 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Respected Administrator, though my some edits may be diruptive but I have made many productive edits and demand on 'yadav' article. Please, unblock me listen my demand on page 'yadav'. My account was because of many disruptive edits in talk page. Thanks Saichana (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request still does not address the reason for the block. You show no evidence of understanding why your editing has been disruptive. You also do not get to demand things of others (nobody on Wikipedia does). Please read and understand all the advice you've been given before making another unblock request. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 5 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Respected Administrator, though my some edits may be disruptive but I have made many productive edits. Please, unblock me. My account was blocked because of many disruptive edits in talk pages . Thanks Saichana (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are clearly deliberately wasting our time with unblock requests you know and have been told are pointless. Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 11:20, 5 April 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.

Comment. The block was only 7 days, so it will be over soon. Why not use the time to try to understand why you were blocked, so you do not make the same mistakes again. Toddy1 (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you have not answered the question at User talk:Saichana#Request for information. All it requires is a "yes" or a"no" answer. Toddy1 (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for Disruptive editing, immediately after your previous block expired, as you did at Talk:B. P. Mandal. 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 ~~~~}}. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Respected administrator,I have been blocked from editing becuase I have made numerous reply on the same talk page.My edit in the article 'bp mandal' is noble and it removes the wrong and unjustified statement.I have made numerous reply on the same talk page becuase each reply has a different way of supporting the edit made on the article page and also I have put numerous questions on the talk page becuase I want a separate reply for all the questions and also reason for reverting. I am fed up with the numerous reversion by the reverter without any reply and reason.The source provided for the paragraph does not supports the phrase removed by me.I request you to relieve me from this block becuase it denies me from making a noble edit which removes wrong and unsourced phrase from the sentence.I will highly grateful for your justice. Saichana (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saichana: Stop! Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and think very carefully about what it says before making an unblock request. If you make an unblock request like the above, it only makes things worse.

By the way, your unblock request was malformed. Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Respected administrator,My edit in the article 'BP mandal' was noble and justified as it removed the wrong and unsourced part of the sentence which was against the source that is provided in support of the paragraph.My edit was being wrongly reverted numerous times without specify ing any reason. Soon, the same edit is now finally done by an another administrator which is as per my demand. But,I am still left blocked for the same edit.Reason for my numerous reply on article talk page is that each reply had a different and unique way of supporting the edit in the article and questions put on talk page expect a reason for the unjustified reversion of my edit. This type of wrong and unlawful reversion was against the Wikipedia reverting policy and it humiliated the confidence of noble and productive editing. I kindly request you to relieve me from this block or reduce the block period which denies me from noble editing.I will be highly grateful to you for your justice.Thanks.Saichana (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not how talk pages work. Your constant posting was disruptive. Until you show that you understand why that is, and what you will do differently in the future, there are no grounds to remove the block, and I am declining your request. I suspect you'll have only one more chance at an unblock request, unless it shows significant progress, so you should make it a good one. 331dot (talk) 07:11, 13 April 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.

@Saichana: Please stop doing unblock requests for a while. Use your talk page to try to understand why you were blocked, and also to try to understand why your unblock requests always fail.

Have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and try to count the number of things they tell you not to do in unblock requests that you did in your last unblock request? Please be generous in counting - for example, saying that reverting you was "unlawful" is not exactly a legal threat but it comes close. Toddy1 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]