103.5.134.163

To edit, please log in.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

11:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Wham2001 (talk · contribs)

---

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Niveda Thomas, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vb on web

Hello, 103.5.134.163. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vb on web".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

February 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to The Comedy of Errors has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Comedy of Errors was changed by 103.5.134.163 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.8787 on 2018-02-11T16:24:29+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Xseed education— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk or my talk page. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2018

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

March 2019

Please refrain from attempting to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been disallowed by an edit filter. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Materialscientist (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

May 2020

Hello, I'm DiplomatTesterMan. Your recent edit(s) to the page Pulitzer Prize appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. DTM (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Important Notice

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 13:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:2020 Delhi riots, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

331dot  I merely questioned the one-sided narratives and the selective narrative on Talk:2020 Delhi riots. Please do share any edits that i have committed there, if any at all.

Your posts there contributed nothing to the discussion. If you have specific concerns about the content of the article, please bring them up along with properly sourced proposed changes, without accusing other editors of an agenda or being "leftists". This is a collaborative project where we all must work with people with differing viewpoints. Please review the talk page discussion and frequently asked questions at the top of the talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

331dot I questioned the fact, that the editors of the page refuse to discuss the Police investigations, the confessions of Tahir Hussain and the links to certain extremist organizations in the one-sided page. Questioning this does not amount to vandalism and the fact you think that it does not contribute to the discussion seems to be your personal opinion, like the rest of the content on the page.

There is no independent reliable source for a confession; it seems to be the word of one rogue police officer speaking unofficially, and the supposed "confession" was made without legal counsel(who would certainly have advised him to not confess), and his legal counsel says he did not confess. In addition, per WP:BLP we cannot put information about confessions as it would suggest he is guilty of a crime, which only a court of law can determine. Again, if you have specific, reliably sourced changed to propose, then do so, but you must work with others who disagree with you and not call them "leftists' or anti-Hindu or whatever. We're focused on summarizing what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

331dot https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-goons-threw-petrol-bombs-from-tahir-hussains-house-deceased-ib-staffers-father-in-fir/348017

https://www.timesnownews.com/delhi/article/raining-stones-and-bombs-rioters-used-makeshift-catapults-and-slingshots-to-target-people-watch/558767 Do these qualify as a reliable source? DIY catapults similar in design to the ones used in Mosul by ISIS were installed on the multiple rooftops including the house of one Tahir Hussain. Can you please add this to the page after verifying the links i have shared. I already see various links from outlook on multiple wikipedia pages as reliable sources? 331dot

We have found that most Indian media is too one sided on this event to be used as independent reliable sources. Looking at this story and its characterization I'm not sure I disagree in this case. However, if you can participate in the spirit I describe here, please use the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

331dot Can you please point me to an international media outlet that you think is not one-sided or what qualifies as an independent reliable source please. I have long givenup on trying to correct the highly biased content and selective facts on 2020 Delhi Riots page. There's a saying from where I come from- You cannot wake a person pretending to be asleep.

October 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Ashwini Akkunji, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Ashwini Akkunji. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello (talk) I do not recall visiting or editing this page.

You may not have, if this is a shared IP. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I rather think that I asked a bunch of uncomfortable questions and I got blocked. (talk) (talk)

A bunch of wiki fascists are masquerading as editors and moderators here. (talk) (talk) blocked my IP address and do not even have the courtesy to reply and justify their actions.

Calling us fascists and other names will not help you get unblocked. Please see WP:AAB for how to appeal, and WP:GAB to learn how to craft an acceptable unblock request. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Heil (talk)

December 2020

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why on earth is a Starbucks IP blocked?

Decline reason:

Because of inappropriate editing. If you were not responsible for any inappropriate edits, you are welcome to request an account at WP:ACC so you can avoid getting caught up in blocks meant to target others. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2020 (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.

What do you mean by Target Others? And looks you are personally invested in this block looking at the page history? Can this block be please reviewed by another admin who is neutral?(talk)

IP addresses are potentially used by multiple people, but we don't know who is sitting at the computer editing. If it wasn't you, you should request an account. I have no personal interest here whatsoever, but if you make another unblock request, someone else will review it. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk) Is IP address editing with correct references disallowed on Wikipedia now? I can choose to use my IP address or create an account, both of which are currently permitted on Wikipedia, as long as I am not violating a WP rule. It is obvious your personally invested in this block to "Target Others" which IMO is abuse of your admin privileges. Can you please stay off this IP Talk page irrespective of whatever past fixations you have, while someone truly neutral reviews my request?

I think you misunderstand what I said, I am not targeting anyone; the block, which I did not issue, targets those who abusively edited. If that wasn't you, great, you should request an account. There is no right to edit by IP. It is permitted, but can be revoked if it is abused. If you have an account, you won't be confused with other users and can edit freely. If you don't want an account, that is your decision, but you must accept that we can't tell who you are otherwise.

I have no "fixation" with anything, and as long as it seems to be you making them, I won't review other requests by you. But as you cannot guarantee you will be the only one using this Starbucks IP, I reserve the privilege to deal with others using this. Another benefit of an account is that you can request that I stay away from your account user talk page, and I can do so since only you would use your account. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why on earth is a Starbucks IP blocked? can a truly neutral admin who has no personal involvement in the previous conversations or blocks review this unfair block of a publc IP Address that is shared?

Decline reason:

The first response was entirely accurate: Because of inappropriate editing. If you were not responsible for any inappropriate edits, you are welcome to request an account at WP:ACC so you can avoid getting caught up in blocks meant to target others. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:39, 26 December 2020 (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.

(talk) You have been replying to every other post on this IP Talk page since September 2020 which clearly explains you did not like what the IP address wanted to edit/or tried to and have an fixation about following up on your block threats that you first issued in September 2020, So do not try to say you do not have a fixation about this particular IP Address Talk page, when the page history suggests otherwise. 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 I refuse to create an account on WIkipedia and potentially exposing my identity, as long as admins like 331Dot who misuse their Admin Privileges. He is Clearly on an agenda here and is definitely tracking this IP Address as his history on the page clearly suggests.

You're more protected by creating an account than by editing through an IP. No personal information needs to be revealed to create an account; all you need is an email account, any email account. No privileges were misused. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 Unless Wikipedia blocks IP Addresses from editing, I will not use an account. It's upto the discretion and biases of the admins to choose which edits to accept and which ones to send into a never ending loop of wp:policies.

Admins do not approve or reject edits any more than any other editor. Everyone has biases, including you. It's just the way it is. As I said, it is your choice to not use an account, but then you must accept what comes with that choice. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk) Everyone has biases including me, if you are incapable of setting them aside to fulfil your duties as a Wikipedia admin, QUIT! And like I said twice already, stop your fixation with this IP Address and stay off this IP Address Page and stop butting your nose into every conversation. I understand you are more than happy to abuse your privileges to protect your biases as the whole truth and speak from a position of power as an admin and one with biases and one who Targets others as you have admitted, But STAY OFF THE PAGE and do not get into conversations that do not directly address you. (talk) Also, Since you were the one who issued the baseless threat of block in the first place, can you please provide evidence of edit histories that prove that someone was using this IP to vandalize a page? Unless you have unilaterally classified conversations that offend you and your preconceived biases as vandalism, everyone has a right to put forth their opinions. If you do not like it, QUIT and stay off this page, unless your next reply has irrefutable evidence.

Since you are using an IP that potentially is used by multiple people, it is impossible for me to guarantee that I will not converse with you. You cannot demand that I stay away from this IP for that reason. I don't know what your fixation is on the idea that I have a fixation, but I do not and I do not understand the source of your hostility towards me, I have been nothing but civil and polite with you. Wikipedia is not a free speech forum where we can give our opinions on any subject.

You are asking me to not speak with you and then you ask me questions, which is it? I can either avoid speaking to you when it is clear it is you, or not. You can't have it both ways. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk) Firstly, Keep your biases aside and do not assume my tone as Hostility(Like you seem to assume that non-Leftist edit/suggestions are vandalism) and try to portray yourself a Martyr, when in reality you are the only one who is being Hostile and came to this Page with a single point agenda of blocking this IP Address. All I am asking for is quantifiable evidence to support your fixation to block this IP Address. And whuile you claim so for lip service, My experiences with admins like you here has proven beyond all doubt that Wikipedia is anything but a platform of Free Speech. And These are neither my words nor my biases. These are words of Larry Sanger who co-founded Wikipedia, who now laments on how the Leftists have hijacked his project to further their agenda in the name of Free Speech. If anything you are a Prime Exhibit that prove him right. All I asked for is simple and straightforward. Since, you came to this page accusing vandalism way back in September 2020, I am asking for evidence for the same. If you do not have it(which I doubt you do.) Go pursue you PhD in Leftist Biases and Whataboutery Somewhere else. Reply If you have actual evidence to it and do not bother to reply, if you think that just because you have successfully wriggled into admin privileges here, you can bully people to bend over backwards to adhere to your biases and agenda.

I will only say that I did not block this IP address, as the block log makes clear. I have no agenda other than to be a good editor. I'm sorry to not have anyone's trust or goodwill. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You can request unblock from another administrator, or not. If not, there is nothing more to do here since you just want to engage in name calling. I have never called you a name. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk) How do you expect me to get a neutral admin to review when you are quick to jump into every review request and force the other admin's hand into agreeing with you?

I have never done that. Other admins are free to do as they wish. The fact that one agreed with me in and of itself does not mean I twisted their arm. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk) Not arm twisted. Only trying to get out a potential DR, which I am sure you would be all too eager to pursue with the sort of fixation you displayed on this talk page, if a fellow admin were to slight your megalomaniac tendencies and disagree with you.

What? I don't know what you're talking about. Are we looking at the same website? I have no intention of DR as I have no dispute with you. I don't know what I did to you to deserve these unfounded accusations and name calling. I'm just here to work on this project. If it makes you feel better I will not comment on a new unblock request, but you've been told what you can do, and declined, so I'm not sure what else you have to offer. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk) I refused to create an account solely on grounds that your behavior of stalking this IP Page for months at a stretch makes me feel unsafe and could lead to a situation where you would disagree with my edits in the future and go on to Dox my identity by abusing your admin privileges.

I'm not stalking anything, that is absurd. I barely know what doxing is, I certainly wouldn't do it. I don't know who you are and have better things to do than find out. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk) Your behavior suggests otherwise. When someone asked a question MaterialScientist, you took it upon yourself to answer it and then went AWOL when they asked you for what unbiased credible foreign sources sources are, when you dismissed their sources are biased and not credible. Only to show up at a time of convenience to nsure the block is not reverted.

You are assigning motivations to me that I don't have and I don't know what I did to you. You are not inside my head to know my motivationa are. I cannot fathom how you are seeing what you claim. Anyway, I will leave you to make a request, or not. If you wish to participate civilly and constructively, I hope you are able to as suggested. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk) I have already seen how you "civilly and constructively" chose not to reply to questions about credible sources and evidences that support your accusations(false?) of vandalism and dodged them with whataboutery? So go stalk some other page for a change. So you would be the last person I would have to learn lessons on Civility and Constructive conversations, seeing how you abuse your admin privileges and start with threats of blocks when you are faced with uncomfortable edits.

331Dot's Unwarranted block threats and Abuse of Admin Privileges

https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=103.5.134.163&page=Talk%3A2020_Delhi_riots&server=enwiki&max= I do not see a single edit here that qualifies as Vandalism. 331Dot posted on this IP Address Page in September 2020 that he will block this IP Address citing Vandalism as a lame excuse, when someone questioned the Biased narrative on the said Page.

April 2021

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to List of film production companies in India. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2023

Hello, I'm Wham2001. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of states with nuclear weapons have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Wham2001 (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---