User talk:Venue9

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Anti-Hindu sentiment, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venue9! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful: Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! regentspark (comment) 14:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that remarks, such as the one you made here are against Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:AGF and comment on content, not on users. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion concerning you at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Please provide your comments there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 20:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See also this AE report. Bishonen | tålk 20:29, 3 May 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).

Venue9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, I was only arguing on the Talk page with reliable sources (I have not edited the Sonia Gandhi article yet). I did not even get a chance to reply at this AE report. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. Venue9 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, the block was necessary to prevent your disription/hoaxing at Talk:Sonia Gandhi and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3. 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.

Saying I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. is not convincing in the slightest. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:21, 4 May 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.

• And see also this SPI. Bishonen | tålk 00:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I am not that person.Venue9 (talk) 02:01, 4 May 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).

Venue9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block was not necessary to prevent my disruption at Talk:Sonia Gandhi and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead.Venue9 (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request is essentially free of content. WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Note you'll likely only get one more chance, so make it count. Yamla (talk) 13:21, 4 May 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 from the blocking admin: reading the guide to appealing blocks is good, but creating an unblock request by copypasting bits from the guide is not good. It's very unlikely to convince a reviewing admin. You need to speak in your own words and be concrete and particular, not abstract and general. One more pointless general request like that and your talkpage access will be revoked. Bishonen | tålk 12:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Yamla, JJMC89, I am being given just one last chance, so is there any successful unblock request I can read? I will add the reasons I am blocked for and put it in my own words. Thanks for making the time to help me!-Venue9 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. — Newslinger talk 23:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]