Mayankabhay
October 2016 edit
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see that you continue to spam to ad revenue sites even after my warning. Any further such edit will result in a block, your threat on my talk page notwithstanding. —SpacemanSpiff 09:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 09:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)At least don't block my freedom of speech!
{unblock|reason=When you gave one warning after that I HAVE NOT ADDED A SINGLE LINK OK, JUST I TALKED TO YOU AND YOU BANNED ME.. IT MEANS I COULD NOT EVEN APPEAL HERE? RIGHT? I HAD CREATED COMPLETE VIDEO OF EVIDENCE. HOW YOU IGNORED THE FACT THAT NO LINKS WERE ADDED AFTER YOUR FIRS WARNING. ONLY I WAS TALKING TO U MR. SPACEMAN SPIFF.. Mayankabhay 09:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)}
I KNOW I MISBEHAVED, BUT I GOT FRUSTRATED WHEN U REFERRED ME AS A SPAMMER. I JUST TALKED TO U AND YOU HAD WRITTEN ALSO PERSISTENT ADDING LINKS. HOW COME U JUSTIFY IT??
Mayankabhay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Fine, I AM SORRY @SPACEMANSPIFF.. PLEASE DELETE MY ACCOUNT.. I RESPECT WIKIPEDIA, but nevermind, because we had a heated arguement, i was blocked even u claim i was adding spam links etc. nevermind, u are boss here, i cannot justify anything more. i truly had added content to wikipedia that was really authentic and genuine for all reasons. Have a great life ahead. all the best for your life. Mayankabhay 09:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We don't delete Wikipedia accounts, so I cant do that for you - if you don't want to use this account any more, please just abandon it. Having said that, you seem a bit angry to me right now, and I can understand that. You've probably made some honest mistakes and have, presumably without properly understanding the problem, now been blocked for it. The problem is, Wikipedia generally does not accept links to download sites, as they're seen as being promotional - and it's common for spammers to try to get download sites into Wikipedia articles in order to get themselves more clicks. If, having reflected a little, you can understand why those links were inappropriate and you decide you want to continue here, please feel free to make a new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2016 (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.
{{unblock | reason=how could I decide? when you people banned me after first warning itself. Just because I was raising voice against calling me as spammer? i raised voice and you people banned me just for the sake to show your administrative powers? else u tel me if anyone is giving warning for the first time and in within 10 minutes when I was putting my voice in front of you that not every person who add links could be a spammer, you showed a hitler attitude and banned me.. that's ridiculous and demotivating.. You should respect to contributors and their grievance if any.. YOU TELL MY PART WHEN AND WHERE DID I ADDED LINKS AFTER FIRST WARNING THAT IF YOU ADD LINKS FURTHER THEN U COULD BE BANNED??? NOT EVEN SINGLE ARTICLE I EDITED AFTER THAT.. .. I DIDN'T ADDED ANY LINKS DEAR, BUT I WAS PUNISHED FOR RAISING VOICE AGAINST CALLING ME A SPAMMER NOT FOR ANY OF MY ACTIONS THAT AFTER FIRST WARNING ... AND M SHOCKED OTHER ADMINISTRATORS TOO TRYING TO SAVEGUARD SPACEMANSPIFF.. U TEL ME ON WHAT GROUNDS I WAS BANNED AFTER FIRST WARNING ???? WHAT WERE MY ACTIONS AFTER FIRST WARNING?? WHERE I ADDED SPAM LINKS AFTER FIRST WARNING?? YOU WILL GET THE ANSWER !!! HOPEFULY @SPACEMANSPIFF SHOULD ANSWER THIS !!! IF HE UNDERSTANDS MEANING OF WARNING IS ! Mayankabhay 05:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)}}
- This was after the final warning note above. Based on your rants here (and on my talk page before being blocked) it's becoming increasingly clear that you have no interest in treating this as a collaborative encyclopaedia but just want to continue spamming and not be called out for it. —SpacemanSpiff 05:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock | reason=First go and learn to respect contributors ok. How many times did I added this website link dear?? i think for the first time. correct your facts. I was not knowing this site is somewhat spam and all ok. I have not continued anything after first warning you better know this. You got frustrated when I appealed against for what you called me a spammer on your talk page dear. Keep your this adminstrative power with yourself. Your father had not created this wikipedia but we contributors do had. You talking about my this edit, first you answer my numerous valuable edits wether it be on Nainital Page, Mukteshwar page, and what not. Even I edited about recent google allo page with important feature, but you stupid called me a spammer. Learn to respect and show your frustration not on work who gives you bread and butter. I guess other adminstrators should look into the disgust behaviour of this stupid admin. )}}
{{unblock|reason=See @spacemanspiff we already had alot discussion till now and as far as I m knowing a spammer don't talks so much and for any so called spammer instead of wasting time hitting with you he could have created numerous hundreds of links till now. I don't know how come you could be so immature about it. For spammers creating accounts, creating links is kinda daily process and any one account getting close might not have made any sense to them. you are not ready to accept your wrong arrogant behaviour towards me, nor I think you could ever understand the same. Mayankabhay 06:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)}}
Mayankabhay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
And I think you should not have so much frustration and eagerness to give me a damn indefinite ban...hahaa.. i turned out to be such a big spammer.. I added so many spam links.. thts really arrogance @spacemanspiff for you loosing your temper for my raising voice against your "WARNING ACTIONS!" I raised voice and you made a "indefinite ban" . hahaa.. I think you should meditate dear.. you ignited me when you called me a spammer. May be my way could have been wrong, you could have corrected me and I could have modified it much better way.. )
Decline reason:
Did you take the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting unblock requests? If so you will have known that the chances of getting unblocked by posting a string of rants attacking other editors would be zero. If you post another such rant, or post more than one unblock request at a time again, then expect to have your talk page access removed to prevent you from wasting more of our time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2016 (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.
You have FOUR open unblock requests, you should only have one at a time. Please close three of them, preferably by deleting them. I so very, very, very strongly urge that you retract the reference to Hitler, otherwise you may find your talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)