Hello OnixWikiEditor, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Divyesh Savaliya, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divyesh Savaliya.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Anuwrites}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ANU^writes 10:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article and for notifying me about the deletion discussion. I understand the importance of ensuring that articles meet Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability guidelines.

I have tried to include reliable sources from established news platforms such as The Economic Times, Business Standard, and ANI News, among others, to demonstrate the subject’s notability. However, I completely respect the review process and will actively participate in the discussion to address any concerns.

If there are specific areas where the article needs improvement, I would appreciate your guidance on how to enhance it to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

Looking forward to your feedback!

OnixWikiEditor (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OnixWikiEditor, please don't use AI chatbots to communicate with other editors. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I am not a native English speaker, so I was only using AI to help me express myself in English. However, I understand the concern, and I will make sure to write my own messages from now on. Thanks for letting me know! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 07:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there are lots of non-native English speakers here. To native speakers with even a little bit of exposure to chatbot English, it's really recognizable, and it comes off as insincere or lying. We'd all really prefer to see your own words, however imperfect, than a chatbot's. :) -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s alright, I want to learn English anyway, and my dream is to visit Thailand one day 😂. I also watch English blogs and participate in Wikipedia discussions and projects to improve my English and help others at the same time. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 17:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and 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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have no idea what mistake I made, and I have not knowingly violated any Wikipedia rules. I want to contribute using neutral and reliable sources. Please review my block. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 04:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that we have evidence confirming that you abusively used multiple accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OnixWikiEditor), I recommend taking the standard offer: don't edit the English Wikipedia at all for at least six months, after which you can come back and request an unblock. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2025 (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.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 04:15, 19 February 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I sincerely apologize for my mistake. Yes, I used two accounts, and I now understand that it was against Wikipedia’s rules. I deeply regret this and assure you that I will never use multiple accounts again. I genuinely want to contribute positively with neutral and reliable sources. Please forgive me and kindly unblock me. I will strictly follow Wikipedia’s policies from now on. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is doubtful that you will be unblocked before a six month wait as a show of good faith that you will not further abuse multiple accounts. We don't need to know how "strictly" you will abide by policies- we just want you to attempt to abide by them in good faith. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2025 (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.