Hello, Garvitpandey1522!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I will definitely ask you if I need help. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abhishek Dhania is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhishek Dhania until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Junbeesh (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Payel Mithai Sarkar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payel Mithai Sarkar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Taabii (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Best Producer (Debut) – 22nd Kalakar Awards for Astra? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Added Sir Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the Second Assistant Director and other credits? IMDb is unreliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir sources added. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add credits where he was not the director or story writer, as they are insignificant and not mentioned in the respective film articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok sir. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Garvitpandey1522 i have noticed you directly publish incomplete articles in mainspace then improve them while tagging them with {{in use}} this causes confusion to other editors as system detects your pages with many relevant issues at New Pages Feed, i suggest please create and complete them at draft space or sandbox instead and move them to mainspace once ready for best practices. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 14:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok sir got your point i will definitely keep in my mind for next my next article creation. Thank You. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm S-Aura. An articles that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. In particular, you should check each citation, and fictitious references must be removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garvitpandey1522. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tracy Wolff, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: References provided are sufficient to establish a credible claim of importance. Use WP:AFD if you think deletion is needed. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garvitpandey1522. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of AVL List, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not TNT level. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Garvitpandey1522,

It is our pleasure to invite you to join a study at the University of Minnesota! The objective of the study is to understand how large language models (LLMs) impact the collaborative knowledge production process, by investigating knowledge contributors’ interactions with LLMs in practice.

If you have used LLMs (e.g., GPT, Llama, Claude...) in the process of contributing to Wikipedia (eg. grammar check, finding resources, writing scripts...), we’d love to join the study! You will be engaging in a 45-60 min interview, talking and reflecting about your experience with Wikipedia and your perception/usage of LLMs in Wikipedia. Your valuable input will not only help us understand practical ways to incorporate LLMs into the knowledge production process, but also help us generate guardrails about these practices. All participation would be anonymous.

In addition, if you know any editor who may have used LLMs during their edits, we highly appreciate it if you could share their contact with us, as we can reach out to them.

To learn more, please feel free to start a chat with me in email or take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:How_LLMs_impact_knowledge_production_processes or direcly sign up: https://umn.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bqIjhNRg9Zqsuvs

Thank you so much for your time and consideration!

All the best, LLMs and knowledge production Research Team Phoebezz22 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes sure sir, i am really interested in this, thank you for inviting me. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Garvitpandey1522 Thank you for your interest! For next step, you can simply sign up at this link: https://umn.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bqIjhNRg9Zqsuvs? And then our coordinator can reach out to you. Phoebezz22 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is a courtesy notice that there is a discussion about you here.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Tyler Luke Cunningham. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Mekomo (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am not the creator of that article. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Garvitpandey1522 They have not written that you're the creator, you just contributed to that. Taabii (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garvitpandey1522,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged UGVCL for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want UGVCL to be deleted, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

GrabUp - Talk 15:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sure, I don't have any issue. Thanks Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garvitpandey1522, I'm a bit confused on what tags you are adding to unreviewed articles. For example, I noticed you tagged Forever Howlong with {{notability}} mere minutes after it was created and developing – and even so, how was it not notable as there were sources with significant coverage of the album present? I also saw {{AI-generated}} and {{notability}} placed on Miriam Nerma as well – I don't see anything indicating that it was written by a LLM per GPTZero and she is clearly notable per the sources listed in the article (e.g. IDU, Kitabat). I added a {{copyedit}} tag though since it definitely needs some prose and grammar fixes. Please be more careful when adding tags in the future. Thanks! ~ Tails Wx 16:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Sir, I will take care of this from next time. Thank You. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garvitpandey1522,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 2027 ICC World Test Championship final for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want 2027 ICC World Test Championship final to be deleted, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

ROY is WAR Talk! 13:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm essentially done building her Wikipedia article. I would appreciate if you would return it back from "draft" status, something I don't know how to do. Thank you. Matza Pizza (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All things being equal, I'd rather you'd left the page as is for a few minutes, as I wrapped up building it. Because now I can't move it before deleting the original, and the whole thing is a pain in the neck, and something I'm not sure how to do. I hope you take care of it.

Thank you.

Matza Pizza (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matza PizzaHey , I noticed that the subject still doesn’t have enough reliable sources. Instead of moving the page directly to the main space, I’d recommend going through the Draft Submission process. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that the article is fully publication ready. It had a dozen sources, most of which are very highly mainstream and reliable; I could easily add many more, but it would be totally unnecessary. (If it means that much to you, please feel free to add more.) Wikipedia is supposed to be about people working together, not using it as a way to try to pad one's ego with nonsense. I have been editing many years more than you have, and have made 4 or 5 times as many edits as you have. My problem is being on the older side and not a digital native, and therefore being miles behind on the intricacies on figuring out how the encyclopedia works. Let's remember to respect the work that others put in instead of being petty and childish about things.

Matza Pizza (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Manisha Korde. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Sam Kuru. I apologize for the oversight and genuinely appreciate your guidance regarding Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I realize that relying on mirrored sources leads to a circular reference, and I will be more diligent in the future to ensure that all citations are from trustworthy, independent sources.

Thank you once again for bringing this to my attention and for your understanding! Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen P. Marks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dean and American. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to reach out because I noticed your recent draftication of Draft:Gareth Scahill, which occurred 3 minutes after the article was created. Per WP:DRAFTNO, articles shouldn't be draftified if they are actively being edited. In practice, this means articles shouldn't be draftified if they have been meaningfully edited in the past hour.

I understand and sympathize with wanting unsourced BLPs out of main space, but we also need to recognize that it can come across as bitey to draftify an article too quickly -- especially considering that articles in mainspace do not need to be complete, and editors are allowed to develop articles in the mainspace.

I hope this makes sense. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir. I got your point, and I will keep this in mind for the next edits. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rahul Malodia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Malodia (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Taabii (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behavior, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern. The majority of my contributions to Wikipedia have been made using a shared Wi-Fi network in my office, which may have led to this misunderstanding. Additionally, in the past, I forgot the passwords to some of my old accounts, which is why I created new ones. Previously, I was not fully aware of Wikipedia's policies regarding alternate accounts. Now that I am informed, I will ensure that I strictly follow the guidelines and avoid any actions that may violate Wikipedia's policies. I sincerely apologize for any unintentional mistakes and will be more careful moving forward. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 06:06, 12 March 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).

Garvitpandey1522 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Respected Admin,

I am writing to respectfully request a review of my block on Wikipedia. I would like to clarify that I am not a sockpuppet, and I believe there has been a misunderstanding regarding my use of multiple accounts.

Previously, I created accounts such as User:Garry Wales 12, User:Garvomio, and User:Hemant Mishra Warm. However, I did not use these accounts for editing as I had forgotten my passwords. Unfortunately, these accounts were later blocked by User:DrKay under the suspicion of sockpuppetry and admin give me a warning 2-3 days back. At that time, I was unaware of Wikipedia's policies regarding multiple accounts and sockpuppetry.

Regarding my current account, User:Garvitpandey1522, I have always contributed in good faith and never engaged in disruptive editing. I noticed that I have been linked with User:Kriji Sehamati, but I have no connection with this account. Additionally, I previously mentioned that I use a shared Wi-Fi network in my office, which is accessed by over 200 people. This may have led to my account being mistakenly flagged for sockpuppetry.

I now fully understand Wikipedia's policies, including those related to sockpuppetry, and I assure you that I am committed to following all guidelines. My edit history reflects my dedication to improving Wikipedia, with over 1,700 constructive edits focused on enhancing and correcting new pages.

I kindly request you to reconsider my block and allow me to continue contributing to Wikipedia positively. I deeply respect the community’s rules and am eager to adhere to all policies moving forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, User:Garvitpandey1522 Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is AI generated(100% certain according to GPTzero). We want to hear from you directly, not an AI. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 12 March 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.

Cool AI generated unblock request. Your disruptive editing is clearly reflected in your talk page warnings and you aren’t exactly blocked for using a shared network. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 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).

Garvitpandey1522 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello Respected Admin, I am here to clarify that I am not a sockpuppet. I don't know why I am blocked by the reason of using multiple accounts on Wikipedia, but I think there is a misunderstanding that I am using multiple accounts. Yes, previously, I created accounts, but I didn't edit with them because I forgot my password of account User:Garry Wales 12, User:Garvomio, User:Hemant Mishra Warm, and these accounts have 0 edits and were blocked by admin User:DrKay by giving me the warning. But I didn't use these accounts for editing because previously I did not know the policy of sockpuppetry and related this topic. And now you can see on my this account User:Garvitpandey1522, I used to contribute with good faith, and I am not a sockpuppet. Also, I can see that I am linked with User:Kriji Sehamati. I don't know why, but this is not my account, and I was not connected with this user in any chance. And I also informed previously that I used a shared Wi-Fi in my office, which is also used by 200+ people in my office, so maybe there was a problem, and I got stuck in the sockpuppet investigation. So please consider my request and please unblock me. I request you. Now I understand all policies of Wikipedia guidelines and related sockpuppetry policies. Even you can check my edit history; I only do editing in good faith and helping Wikipedia community to correct new pages. I have done more than 1700+ edits on my account. So please, I request you, respected admins, please consider my request. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request is full of contradictions. You say there's no sockpuppetry and then go on to list your sockpuppet accounts. You say those accounts performed no edits, but Special:Contributions/Hemant_Mishra_Warm clearly shows edits. Please, get your story straight before you make an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 11:50, 12 March 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.

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).

Garvitpandey1522 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I sincerely regret if my previous request caused any misunderstanding. I now see that I had previously created several identities without fully understanding Wikipedia's policies about sockpuppetry. Having said that, I have been actively contributing to Wikipedia with my primary account, User:Garvitpandey1522, and I have contributed more than 1,700 sincere updates to make it better.

I swear to follow the rules going forward because I now have a firm grasp of Wikipedia's policies. If you could reevaluate my block and allow me to continue making constructive contributions, I would be really grateful.

Decline reason:

Unconvincing discussion below, where they appear to be telling us what we want to hear vs. the truth. Please build a constructive editing history elsewhere and you may be eligible for the standard offer in six months. Star Mississippi 19:11, 14 March 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.

My two cents (that no one asked for): Garvitpandey1522 was blocked specifically as a sockpuppet of Thesolicitors based on behavioural evidence, with the technical evidence showing a  Possible possible connection in a noisy range. In the unblock requests above, Garvitpandey1522 has received flack about previous accounts, none of which had made any edits since 2023, which is more than we would request via the standard offer. As such, I think this unblock process should focus on the connection between Garvitpandey1522 and Thesolicitors as discussed at the SPI. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Garvitpandey1522 Your best bet here is to address the following comment directly:

* Thesolicitors edits Kislay Pandey in August 2016, deleted in September 2016. Re-created at Draft:KISLAY PANDEY in February 2017. Confirmed sock Symonds Gerother also edited Kislay Pandey in 2024. Now re-creates it under a different spelling Kislay Panday.

• Previous confirmed socks create Draft:Sharad Kohli. Garvitpandey1522 re-creates as Sharad Kohli.
• Same with Draft:Rahul Malodia/Rahul Malodia
• Garvitpandey1522 says in the past, I forgot the passwords to some of my old accounts, which is why I created new ones. [1] The other accounts are not named, but the current one was created 2023-11-30, so presumably they had access to this one all the time.
• Previous activity was on 2024-02-16, and it was not resumed until 2025-01-17, shortly after Kriji Sehamati block on 2024-12-24.
  — User:MarioGom

any other unblocks (either through emails or otherwise) won't be considered. Sohom (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've revoked your ability to send email for now since this case could/should be addressed onwiki (for the most part). The email access will be restored if/when you are unblocked. Sohom (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Will you please guide me what can i do now? Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to address the comment in green, particularly those surrounding recreating articles frequented by User:Thesolicitors's sockpuppets. Sohom (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with TheSolicitors but know that this page is in my office since I work in an office of lawyers. The Kislay Panday page is one of a famous lawyer from Uttar Pradesh. I was asked to make his Wikipedia page, and when I checked his name on Google, I discovered that he could be considered notable. Therefore, I thought of rebuilding his page. Rahul Malodia went through the same thing.

But I don't have anything to do with Kriji. This might be because I had edited Wikipedia on the office Wi-Fi network, which is open to all in the office. Possibly, because of the common IP range, my account ended up getting associated with other accounts.

I really didn't know Wikipedia's policies when I was new here, and that is why I erred in the past. I apologize sincerely for this. It will never happen again—I assure you, sir. Please, I humbly request you to kindly consider my request. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom and @Jeraxmoira, since y'all are a lot more well versed in the sockpuppetry pervasive in this area, I'll let y'all give your thoughts on the above. I still find the coincidences a bit hard to digest and I'm leaning not-unblock for now. Sohom (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The responses above imply this page was created based on instructions by someone else at the workplace, which I would consider paid editing, and the payer/employer has not been disclosed. No past accounts have been disclosed either, even though their existence was aconowledged. So I'm not sure why the account would be unblocked. It seems UPE, meatpuppetry and proxying for a blocked editor. MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garvit started patrolling new pages around their 20-30th edit, but none of their other accounts have any prior edit history so I dont think its possible to be familiar with NPP so early on. Apart from that, conveniently leaving out Sharad Kohli when asked, while also openly admitting they were "asked to make his Wikipedia page" raises enough UPE concerns to justify not lifting the block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So sir Please suggest me what can i do in this situation. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you come clean and then follow what's on WP:NICETRY and WP:SOCKBLOCK, I don't think anyone can help you here. The number of times you've already denied the accusations only lowers your odds of getting unblocked. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have no intension of doing paid editing. i am not aware there policies before please give me a single chance. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]