User talk:Sky Groove

November 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 13:51, 4 November 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

it is my humble request to the admin that please unblock me. I was blocked because of sock puppetry, something I had no idea about until I got blocked. I only contribute in the fields of modelling and pageantry. I created multiple accounts because I wanted to create articles of some specific model or pageant winner from one account and others from.a different one. I did it for my convienence. But eventually I lost the track and it all became hodge podge. But as you can see most of my wiki creations have been accepted. And I dont provide any false info. Or create any false article. I just write the facts that have a reference to support it. I do it as a leisure activity. So please unblock me I promise I will not commit this mistake again. Sock puppetry was something I did unknowingly. Now I really want to come back on wiki. I want to create articles on significant subjects related to.pageantry and modelling. Please please unblock me.Other accounts I used were Grovver Sky, Zack Martin 2000, Zeke Miguel and Lucas Spencer

Decline reason:

It's interesting to read, on more than one talk page, your claims to have used multiple accounts innocently, not knowing of the policy on sockpuppets. It may or may not be true that you did not know of that policy at the time when you first started using sockpuppets, but when you had had seven accounts blocked for sockpuppetry and you then went ahead and created another one, you knew full well what you were doing. Telling lies so blatant that the administrator reviewing your unblock request would have to be an idiot to believe them is not a good way to get unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2016 (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.

Sky Groove (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the other accounts you have used and are using. Another account of yours was just blocked a few days back. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts I used were Groover Sky, Lucas Spencer, Zeke Miguel and Zack Martin 2000. Please unblock me afer I came to know about this block and sock puppetry I created only one account and have been editing and creating articles by it until now. I understood about the sock.puppetry it is evident from this fact and did not cause any vandalism in past after getting to know about wiki properly. Please please unblock me. I have to create more notable articles. Sky Groove (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be unblocked but as I have blocked or reviewed one of your socks in the past I will let another admin make that call. It is also disconcerting that you claim to have not been the cause of any disruption in the past when quite the opposite is true. —SpacemanSpiff 04:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier that I am still learning and not much active on wiki. So I did not know whether I caused any disruption. But if you see my recent work I have improved a lot I think, so please please unblock me. Just give me one chance. I have come a long way since I started and all of us learn from our mistakes. And I learnt too. Please give me one chance. I did not take it seriously in past. But now I m pretty much serious. If i caused any disruption then I apolpgise about that. Give me one chance please. If you think I made any mistake then you can block me again. Atleast give me one chance. I just dont edit any random article. I have only edited articles related to modelling and pageantry. That pretty much describes my vision. Please please give me one chance. It takes a lot of time and efforts to create articles and seeing those articles being deleted after being reviwed makes me feel that all my efforts have gone vain. Please please give me one chance. I promise I will not cause any disruption again. Sky Groove (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Sky Groove (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to specifically request admin help like this - the unblock request is sufficient to bring it to the attention of admins who review such things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much for replying. Sky Groove (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really apologize for the disruption i caused in past as mentioned earlier I was still learning and was not familiar with norms of wiki. It feels really bad and heart wrenching to see my 11 articles who were successfully accepted being deleted for the sock puppetry which I caused unknowingly in past. But now i have come a long way since then and have improved a lot. It takes a lot of time and effort to create an article and losing 11 of your successful creations is a big deal I really really want to cone back please whosoever comes to this page kindly help me out in unblocking. I will be really grateful. I need to get unblocked as soon as possible as I have more articles to create. Please please try to understand my situation. Sky Groove (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by "I need to get unblocked as soon as possible as I have more articles to create. Please please try to understand my situation."? Is this part of your job requirement or a freelance project that you've taken up on behalf of someone? It's difficult to understand if you don't explain it.—SpacemanSpiff 15:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to spiff: Neither, the reason I wrote it because I am one of the very very few editors who have been contributing in the fields of Indian pageantry and modelling. It was something which was still not fully covered or there on wiki till I started doing it. A lot of notable subjects were there and I thought I should put them on wiki. And most of them got accepted thats how I started doing it. But the block got in my way. And I did prepare a few articles to publish before getting blocked besides investing so much time and effort in creating articles and seeing 11 of then deleted even after accpetance, it really kinda felt bad but its ok. I asked to get unblocked because i was having a good amount of time these days due to less work load so would love to contribute more as wiki is the easiest provides access to getting to know anything. Sky Groove (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Reply to the admin who just reviewed my request: I did not know about the unblock policy till my latest account got blocked. Secondanly if i were doing sockputtery intentionally and knew all about it I would have created more accounts after my previous accounts got blocked last year and would have continued to edit using newly created accounts. But did i do so no. I continued to contribute with a single account. Secondly If i were fully aware of sockputtery then i would not be using the same pattern of writing my articles and editing habits, I could have used a different style but did I do so, 'no. So if anyother admin wishes to review it kindly review it

Decline reason:

You say you did not know about the unblock policy. Presumably, you mean the sockpuppet policy. You try to provide evidence of this, but don't explain how you could possibly be unaware of the policy after being blocked for sockpuppetry in late 2015. No, it's very clear you knew exactly what you were doing. You had at least six accounts blocked for sockpuppetry and so set up a seventh account to get around your block, knowing full well what you were doing. Yamla (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2016 (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.

Sky Groove (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Reply to admin who just reviewed my request: I knew about the sock puppetry thing a bit but Did not know that there was a way to get unblocked. I did not open this account until now. You can also check it on my latest account that I posted the unblock request there first and in response to that request an admin posted that I had to make the request here. If I would have known all about the way to get unblocked I could have made a request here in the first place but did I do that, NO. Besides if causing disruption or sock puttery would have been my prime objective then why would I have invested so much time and efforts in creating 11 or 12 wiki articles which have now been deleted. And why would I have posted them with a single account. I could have created multiple accounts like I did previously but did I do so, No. Moreover why would I be only creating articles related to the fields of pageantry and modelling if my prime objective was to cause disruption. I could have randomly picked up something but did I do so, No. And in my mind there was a difference in sockputtery and unblock policy. If some other admin wishes to investigate all the things I wrote then please do.

Decline reason:

As above - especially per JamesBWatson's rationale SQL ^{Query me!} 22:52, 18 June 2016 (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.

Sky Groove (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock requests are repetitive and disruptive. I've therefore revoked your Talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Iona Pinto

The article Iona Pinto has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article contains zero reliable sources. Both of the existing sources – missosology.info and pageantopolis.com and – are listed by consensus at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources as unreliable for reasons of independence or fact-checking or both.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]