User talk:Trisha Gaurav

Hello, Trisha Gaurav, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, your reversion here doesn't improve the article. If ages or other information was never mentioned in the show or the books, then restoring the speculative content you originally added in this edit as IP 97.118.171.75 (noting that you did self identify as this IP) serves no purpose. We're not here to entertain speculation like "They look and act like kindergarteners" simply because you disagree with the previous speculation. In contrast, the purpose of my original reversion was to preserve the status quo, since you didn't support your claim with a reference. Changing unsourced content without adding any references serves no net benefit, because your content is no more reliable than the unsourced content that came before it, and per WP:BURDEN, if you restore unsourced content, the onus is on you to provide references for it. In this edit I have removed the problematic content entirely and have gotten rid of a lot of additional analysis, interpretation, assumptions, deductions, unprofessional commentary, poor grammar, and so forth. Please avoid reversions in the future unless you have a valid reason, and please take a look at our policy about original research. Much obliged, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ollo in the Sunny Valley Fair and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Trisha Gaurav, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

It's good that you added sources, but they are not reliable sources by Wikipedia's policies. What you provided are primarily sales sites. Looking at this, I seriously doubt if this game will be considered notable. It would need to have a number of newspaper or journal articles written about it for that to be the case.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ollo in the Sunny Valley Fair and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ollo- Ollo in The Sunny Valley Fair.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ollo in the Sunny Valley Fair, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed your listing of this article at Articles for Deletion and the addition of the category to the article because no attempt was made to actually create a discussion regarding this article. If you wish to create a discussion please visit Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion and follow the instructions there for creation of a deletion discussion. However, the subject does meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, so creating this discussion is likely to be fruitless. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that any topic that is the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is notable and should have an article. Whether or not the film is "worthy" is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Colossal Cave Adventure are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 14:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Infant, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 14:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to English Mastiff. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Back at the Barnyard. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. There is no need for the YouTube link in your edit summaries. Don't add it again. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Cruelty to animals. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm William Harris. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dog, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your edit was in good faith, however it is contentious as some people might disagree, and therefore it needs the citation (please click on WP:CITE) from a reliable source to support it. William Harris • talk • 09:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you edited a few articles to add links to years. Per our manual of style, we don't do this, as it's considered overlinking. The problem is that readers get confused when they see so many different things linked, and they don't know which ones are important or relevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Satellizer. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mouse has been undone because it did not appear constructive. 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. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mouse. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lasagne, 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. Ibadibam (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to List of Toy Story characters. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diff: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this is a recurring issue for you, for instance your edit here at the article on Lasagne and your prior edits at Mouse. You need to be able to distinguish between facts and your personal opinions, as your opinions have no place here. Also, please do not submit any more unsourced content, like these birth dates for fictional characters: [2][3][4][5]. This tends to look like something you pulled out of thin air, and is indistinguishable from vandalism. Competence is required at Wikipedia, so before you reply that you don't understand why this would be a problem, think very hard about it. If you do this sort of thing again, your editing privileges will be interrupted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is also not constructive and just looks like trolling. Please feel free to explain below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it not constructive?--Trisha Gaurav (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ollo in The Sunny Valley Fair.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: [6][7] You need to be able to differentiate between fact and opinion, and and to understand that your opinion doesn't belong in articles. We only care how professional critics or other professionals interpret the Superman story, and you would have to source that. Your observation "Note that when theft is committed by a non-human animal, no lawsuit is made" is of no obvious encyclopedic value. I strongly doubt that anyone reading Theft is wondering how clogged up our legal system is with wild-fox-steals-farmer's-chicken cases. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trisha Gaurav. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Dwayne Powers, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dwayne Powers 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/Dwayne Powers until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ubiquity (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also added Sally McDonald (Nancy Drew), Penvellyn and Jane Penvellyn to the discussion. Wikipedia is not a fan-site, and is not NancyDrewWiki. Unless you have sources showing that these characters are notable in their own right, they do not deserve Wikipedia articles. ubiquity (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jane Penvellyn

added a link pointing to Danger By Design

Penvellyn

added a link pointing to El Diablo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ollo in the Sunny Valley Fair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Grossman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Michael Gray (gamer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Noq. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Maggie Simpson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. noq (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article at that location is too soon per requirements listed at Wikipedia:Notability (films) § Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films (aka WP:NFF). You also created that article by copying content from Shrek (franchise) § Shrek 5 (2019) without attributions. See more at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia about providing the required attributions when you do copy content from article to another. There is nothing in the Shrek 5 article as it stands before I redirected it that is not a copy of what is in the franchise article and that is the proper place for the Shrek 5 article to redirect to for now. If you do want to work on a film article for that movie create one in draft space and move it to article space when the film meets the WP:NFF requirements. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are expected to discuss issues such as this when brought to your attention, not just ignore them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shrek 5. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sro23 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Maggie Simpson. please stop adding claims about Maggies motives without supplying a reference. noq (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a final attempt to try to get you to understand. You cannot just keep reverting edits - this is edit warring and will get you blocked. The reference you added to the Simmpsons Wiki fails on two counts; firstly, it is not a WP:reliable source and secondly, it does not actually back up the claim you are making anyway. Please revert your last edit or I will have to report you for edit warring. noq (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not revert it again, but if you're wondering how it backs up the claim, there is this one line: 'Maggie switches to Elmo's website after realizing the family may be watching her play online poker.'

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Man of Steel 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man of Steel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Bbb23. Your recent edit to the page Home Alone appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it 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 think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A tag has been placed on Steal Your System requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 10:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A tag has been placed on Steal Your System requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Grumpy cat, 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. Fylbecatulous talk 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Play-Doh, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Meters. If you are going to waste my time claiming "Play-Doh" is actually spelled "Plato" I'm going to call it vandalism. Stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never had my own plato, I only could use it at a friend's house when I was younger, so naturally I assumed it would go by the normal rules of spelling. It was an honest mistake. --Trisha Gaurav (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously been warned that competence is required and about trolling, so it's up to you. No more warnings as far as I am concerned. Meters (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trolling. That's like saying the person who changed all the "he's" to "she's" on the Nermal section of Garfield and Friends was trolling. Will you say any American who pronounces a Chinese word wrong is a troll? --Trisha Gaurav (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the matter at hand, the article is titled Play-Doh. At least three images are present that show the product labeled Play-Doh. It is hard to believe that you legitimately thought that changing the spelling was a constructive improvement to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Plato"? Seriously? I'm pulling the plug on this account. Not just for that, but for crap like this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite does not mean forever, but it does mean for the foreseeable future. In order to have your privileges reinstated, you will have to convince a reviewing admin that you are capable of editing here in accordance with established community guidelines. A brief check of your recent edits has turned up numerous instances of you adding personal commentary/analysis and even bizarre, unsubstantiated statements like that "most fictional parrots" speak in the third person. What? Or this edit in a children's article where you introduce the bizarre analysis that a character "resembles a pareidolic dildo". I have strong doubts that you understand what sort of content should and should not be included in articles, and as has been noted, competence is required at Wikipedia. I find your explanation that you honestly thought Play-Doh was spelled Plato to be completely unbelievable, and your failure to look it up only raises questions about competence or that you are trolling. Neither scenario is suitable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:50, 20 November 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Look, the reason I was on Play-Doh at all was because I was chatting with Isabella on Facebook and I was surprised when she spelled it like "Play-Doh", so I searched it on Google to check if her spelling was right. The Wikipedia page was one of the results, and proved her right. I was so annoyed at this fact that I changed it to say my own opinion. Trisha Gaurav (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Losing an argument is not an excuse for vandalism. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:06, 20 November 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.

Hello, Trisha Gaurav. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will follow the rules from now on and won't do anything that doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, thank you. --Trisha Gaurav (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've had multiple previous chances and blown them all. You've provided no reason to believe this time would be any different. Yamla (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to propose an edit.

Chip is the son of Mrs. Potts. He serves as the film's most relatable character. As a result of the Enchantress' spell, he is transformed into a teacup, with a small crack on the rim. He befriends Belle and looks up to her. He gets admonished by his mother when he does a bubble trick to Belle and when he giggles at how the Beast handles a spoon. Also, he stows away when she has to leave the castle to save her father Maurice, and wants to find out why she left. He later frees Belle and Maurice, who are trapped in the cellar by Gaston, by commandeering Maurice's invention, an automatic firewood chopper, to break open the cellar door but destroying the invention in the process. Trisha Gaurav (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't an unblock request. Please don't waste our time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not going to make any more disruptive edits. Trisha Gaurav (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Revoking talk page access, as this is now just wasting our time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2017 (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.