Jump to content

User talk:Archiedesai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Archiedesai (talk | contribs) at 12:13, 23 August 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi Archiedesai! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! BOVINEBOY2008 11:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signing and references

Please "sign" your comments with ~~~~. This will put your name and the date at the end of your messages. See WP:Signature for details.

Also, you can use {{reflist-talk}} at the end of your message to cause any references you have in your message to appear at the bottom of your message rather than at the bottom of the page. Only use this on "discussion" pages, not in articles. See Template:Reflist-talk for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No means No (Film) Discussion

Comment: @davidwr, @Drmies, @Donaldd23, @User:El cid, el campeador

  1. Sir, I am shocked and disappointed to see that the Film/Movie of such a magnitude & high budget[1], was first put up for deletion and now shifted to draft, wherein there are innumerable independent articles in the Indian as well as International publications/media houses who are on the Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources, such as the article carried in “The Hindu” which is independent & in-depth article[2] and is self explanatory & also covered in other international Media, whereas, the wikipedia page such as for the film “Madam Chief Minister” are still alive, inspite of having sources only from The Hindustan Times, Bollywood Hungama, The Times of India, which according my learned colleague @davidwr “The Times of India” are not under the list of reliable sources and otherwise all these three sources are not on the Wikipedia’s List of reliable sources, then how come the page of “Madam Chief Minister”’s page is still alive? Whereas these sources are there multiple times on the wikipedia page of “No means No”. This is my concern. Personally with all due respect, I have nothing against the article of the film “Madam Chief Minister”, but just referring it for comparison and knowledge, and one more question arises as to why the page of “No means No” is targeted?
  2. Through the research and study of available & reliable sources in Wikipedia and others, the cast & crew such as
    1. Gulshan Grover, who is world renowned actor who has worked in more than 400 movies in Hollywood & Bollywood.
    2. Hariharan is a legendary Music Maestro and is conferred with the highest award and the title of “Padma Shri” by Government of India,
    3. Neetu Chandra is the winner of 2 national awards and is an actor working in both Hollywood & Bollywood,
    4. Shreya Ghoshal is a world renowned singer who has to her credit of 851 songs in Hindi Language itself and also has her statue at the London Museum of Madam Tussad’s and in America, one day is dedicated to her by the governor of California, United States,
    5. Shiamak Davar is a world famous choreographer who is known for his works for the film “Mission Impossible” & “Ghost Busters” and winner of various Filmfare Awards,
    6. Sharad Kapoor who is also a nominee for Filmfare Award for his acting work.
    7. The Director Mr. Vikash Verma, who is also a world renowned security expert[3] has been awarded by the Government of Bihar, India for his contribution to the Bollywood film Industry and the film “No means No”; Source: The telegraph, Hindustan Times, Movie Talkies, Mid-day.
  3. The Film which is on women empowerment story, to strengthen the relationship of the two countries, is backed & supported by the Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi & Prof. Piotr Glinski - Dy. Prime Minister of Poland, Indian Ambassador to Poland, Polish Member of Parliament Ms. Ms. Malgorzata Pepek, the President of Bielsko-biala, and also the tweet by the government of Poland. I'snt the tweet from the government of Poland reliable and credible? Source “The Hindu”[4]
  4. Recently G7 Films. Poland which is the production house, have been awarded with “The Best Trailer Award”[5] by the Mid-day & Jagran Group, which is one of the oldest news publishing house according to Wikipedia. The production house have been backed by more than 250 articles starting from the year 2017, published on various Multi-lingual Indian as well as International News Media which are on the Wikipedia pages. The research also confirms that none of these articles are the press releases.
  5. I come across new article everyday from the publications which have their own wikipedia pages, which I had been putting up on the discussion page on regular basis. And as you can see that what I am writing now is already been updated on the discussion pages with the supporting links attached, which had been ignored for the reasons best know to my colleague authors and as a beginner I would like to know and understand on the different approaches to two pages of same category. Even all these information is been updated on the page of “No means No".
  6. According to my learned colleague @davidwr, the page can remain live if more articles on the news media are published and mentioned on the page, which I could find a in-depth and detailed article on “The Hindu”[6], which also satisfies the condition of being on the Wikipedia list of reliable sources. Plus also Lokmat & Bollywood Hungama, Box Office India, & Cineblitz articles had come in and updated on the “No means No” page.
  7. As my learned colleague @Drmies had analysed the discussion page and reached a conclusion that the article is to be sent to draft, whereas when I go through the discussion page, the visible consensus that can be seen is of keeping the page alive. One more point, when at first the page was put up for deletion and after the necessary discussion and changes, the page was allowed to keep alive. It’s difficult to understand that once the discussion was closed and then the article was kept alive, why is the page again brought up for deletion and then moved to draft, even though there were no changes made to the article.
  8. I will update the below list of published articles on daily basis
    1. 5th February, 2021
      1. News Article on ANI News
      2. News Article on The Times of India
      3. News Article onThe Hindustan Times
      4. Tweet from the Government of Poland
    2. 8th February, 2021
      1. Listing on The Tribute
    3. 9th February, 2021
      1. No Mean No on Rotten Tomatoes Listing
  9. Aren't the in-depth independent article published in the reliable sources not worthy of having this page live?

I was feeling proud by editing this page of such a great film, My whole effort has gone in vain and today, I feel emotionally hurt & disappointed having to face this situation and such humiliation, even after following all the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia. And fail to understand why there are two different measure sticks taken?

My humble request to you all of my colleagues, please reply so that I can get educated and guide me if I am wrong in of the inferences as derived in my above writeup. I am feeling discouraged to be actively participating in Wikipedia.

References

  1. ^ "Mid-day". Mid-day.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "The Hindu". The Hindu.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "The Telegraph". The Telegraph.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "The Hindu". The Hindu.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ "Mid-day". Mid-Day.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ "The Hindu". The Hindu.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Archiedesai (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the first editor to be frustrated by Wikipedia's rules

I had multiple pages that I created deleted in my first year, both under this account and under another long-abandoned account. It was very frustrating. More than a decade later though, I appreciate why my work was deleted: I was either writing about non-notable topics or my writing was so "not the Wikipedia way of writing" that it was better to start over from scratch.

Your draft is actually in a much better position than my early, deleted works: It is about a topic that is almost certain to qualify for an article by early April. It might already qualify but it's in that "subjective grey area" where rejection is more likely than acceptance at this time. Since a discussion just ended, it would be "in bad form" and likely "backfire" on you if you attempted to have the results of that discussion overturned either through deletion review or by immediately re-submitting the draft without waiting for the film's notability to increase to the point that its notability will not be questioned.

Be patient and you will very likely be able to celebrate the page's move to the main encyclopedia in a couple of months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Archiedesai! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Please advice on bringing the Article on main wikipedia after getting shifted to draft, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vikash Verma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page No Means No. 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) 05:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archiedesai. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sir/Madam,
I am an engineer by profession and from an Industrial/entertainment business family. I can be an asset to Wikipedia, but will never cross the line in regards to Wikipedia Ethics and guidelines.
I had indemnified myself before and will do so again that I will make sure that I don’t get into such a situation ever again.
You all can check my track record of 11 years, year by year, wherein you will not find me doing anything for money or any other ulterior motive.
My protecting arguments for saving my ID are not personal neither for any gains. Anything that may have showed up is merely innocent and not a deliberate attempt to make money. As you can see from whatever I edited, it was never a promotional thing, but just maybe over excited to edit for an Icon and epic.
If again in future if you come across anything that may arise suspicion, you may feel free to block my ID permanently. Since my childhood, my nature is to help people/animals who are in distress and maybe that could be reflecting on here. Certain time, certain things happen.
I once again humbly and honestly request you to please unblock my ID. Archiedesai (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

REVISED APPEAL - I am hereby appealing for getting my ID unblocked, as after being an user on Wikipedia since last 11 years with clean track record. And I am thoroughly aware of the discipline and practices to be followed on making Wikipedia a a global phenomenon as I am a qualified engineer and Wikipedia is not only my hobby but passion to have it to its best. I have been on Wikipedia since such a long period and have never tried or have made any monetary gain out of it. As you see on the records, have never involved in making a bio-page for anybody where there is a maximum possibility of having monetary gain. # As per the allegation of sock-puppetry, the users User:SmartSameer Patil, User:01lt, User:Ashitamlk, are never in my control domain, and they would be individuals with whom I have no connection whatsoever. And me being on Wikipedia for such a long time, I am aware of the fact that if I need to recommend a page to stay, I need to explain with citation for the reason for which the page need to stay. As being the case of User:SmartSameer Patil's comment for keep, there is nothing of that sort and if he were my sock puppet, I would have been mature enough to have guided him to do it properly with citations, which is not the case. So if in case there is anything that shows up as possible sock puppetry. Its mere coincidence and not an intent for sure. As also was mentioned by the USER:DEB that there is no sockpuppetery in my case. #I don’t know Mr. Vikash Verma personally and hence there is no conflict of interest, but as he is found everywhere in news in India and have been following him since last 20 years. He had been doing a good diplomatic work in bringing the two countries together. But that doesn’t mean that I am his promoter. And unbiased honest feeling that he is worth a place on Wikipedia, as he has worked for the President of the United States of India’s security cover, and making movies such as No means No & The Good Maharaja, to strength bilateral relations between the two countries. Moreover, There are people in my country, state and also within the organisation who can be enemies, which is also a possibility for such a situation and jeopardise the whole purpose of Wikipedia. If there is suspicion about me being connected to Vikash Verma, I will completely refrain myself from editing or adding any information on his page, and I indemnify for that. I have more of an interest in science & technology, Entertainment World and current affairs(India as well as worldwide) and will stick to editing or adding information in these areas. I do understand that I had been blocked for a reason, which was not done by me but yet I promise that I will take this situation very seriously. However, I assure and confirm that I will be more cautious and alert so that such type of situation doesn’t arise. I promise to abide by all the rules and discipline defined by the Wikipedia community. Request the moderators and administrators to consider my case and unblock my USERID. Warm Regards.. Archiedesai (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2021 (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.

Advice

Archiedesai Although I'm prepared to believe you may be the victim of circumstances rather than having an ulterior motive, you should understand that an appeal which singles out other editors for criticism is not likely to be looked on favourably. Although you have had an ID for a long time, you have made very few edits, and that in itself does not look good. If you want the appeal to be successful, you need to show that you understand where you went wrong, and I think you would also need to guarantee not to edit any articles relating to Vikash Verma in the future. I can't promise that you would then be unblocked, but I am quite certain that you won't be unblocked if you word your appeal in this aggressive way. Deb (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice, and I will definitely review my appeal if its sounding aggressive, but definitely and honestly, its not meant to aggressive. I will surely refrain from editing or commenting on the page Vikash Verma, as adviced.. Archiedesai (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the appeal after taking your advice into consideration and just stayed focussed on the problem and correcting myself. Archiedesai (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I received your message. I would suggest you just add to your appeal an explanation of what articles/what kind of articles you plan to edit in future if unblocked, and also which articles you will avoid editing. It's important that you show that you understand why you were blocked. I won't review this myself but, if you make some improvements, I will ask an uninvolved admin to look at it again. Deb (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your kind support and advice and I have edited my appeal accordingly.. Warm regards. ~~~ Archiedesai (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Another administrator has referred me to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archiedesai and there is further evidence there that seems to connect you to other accounts. I'm afraid you will need to respond to these before you will have a chance of being unblocked. Please don't e-mail me again. Say what you have to say in your appeal. Deb (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem @Deb, I will certainly prove my innocence. I totally understand, and maybe I will take the brunt of being in the wrong place at wrong time. And I don't understand as to why me? When I was not at all involved in any kind of immoral activity. I am from a Industrialist family and engineer by profession and doesn't need to earn money on Wikipedia, after being on Wikipedia for 11 years with clean track record. God bless you. Archiedesai (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I hereby would like to appeal to unblock my account, which is more than 11 years old account.

I analysed by block in detail and have been studying the reason of the block:

I do understand that circumstantially, my actions do show that there is suspicion of sock puppetry, and the seriousness of these circumstantial findings. I assure the community that I would restrict myself from any of such activities as there is a serious possibility that I work in the office, and the internet here is shared. As regards to the users listed that are possible sock puppets of mine are not known to me as I tried to check the other users on our network.

However, I am very well aware of the rule of sock puppetry within Wikipedia and the what wrong it does to the community. I assure the community that I will strictly restrict myself in getting into something like that. I will also refrain myself from using Wikipedia from my office and use it from my house wherein, such type of event doesn’t arise.

I promise the community that I will indulge only in constructive editing and do everything that would be good for the community and won’t do anything that would lead to showing my behaviour as disruptive and against the rules and policies of the Wikipedia community.

I therefore request your goodself to please unblock me looking into the more than 11 years of my association with Wikipedia and this is the first instance wherein I am in this situation. I regret getting into such a situation.

Thanks in advance, and assure the community that I will be a well behaved individual in future. Archiedesai (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I hereby would like to appeal to unblock my account, which is more than 11 years old account. I analysed by block in detail and have been studying the reason of the block: I do understand that circumstantially, my actions do show that there is suspicion of sock puppetry, and the seriousness of these circumstantial findings. I assure the community that I would restrict myself from any of such activities as there is a serious possibility that I work in the office, and the internet here is shared. As regards to the users listed that are possible sock puppets of mine are not known to me as I tried to check the other users on our network. However, I am very well aware of the rule of sock puppetry within Wikipedia and the what wrong it does to the community. I assure the community that I will strictly restrict myself in getting into something like that. I will also refrain myself from using Wikipedia from my office and use it from my house wherein, such type of event doesn’t arise. I promise the community that I will indulge only in constructive editing and do everything that would be good for the community and won’t do anything that would lead to showing my behaviour as disruptive and against the rules and policies of the Wikipedia community. I therefore request your goodself to please unblock me looking into the more than 11 years of my association with Wikipedia and this is the first instance wherein I am in this situation. I regret getting into such a situation. Thanks in advance, and assure the community that I will be a well behaved individual in future. [[User:Archiedesai|Archiedesai]] ([[User talk:Archiedesai#top|talk]]) 12:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I hereby would like to appeal to unblock my account, which is more than 11 years old account. I analysed by block in detail and have been studying the reason of the block: I do understand that circumstantially, my actions do show that there is suspicion of sock puppetry, and the seriousness of these circumstantial findings. I assure the community that I would restrict myself from any of such activities as there is a serious possibility that I work in the office, and the internet here is shared. As regards to the users listed that are possible sock puppets of mine are not known to me as I tried to check the other users on our network. However, I am very well aware of the rule of sock puppetry within Wikipedia and the what wrong it does to the community. I assure the community that I will strictly restrict myself in getting into something like that. I will also refrain myself from using Wikipedia from my office and use it from my house wherein, such type of event doesn’t arise. I promise the community that I will indulge only in constructive editing and do everything that would be good for the community and won’t do anything that would lead to showing my behaviour as disruptive and against the rules and policies of the Wikipedia community. I therefore request your goodself to please unblock me looking into the more than 11 years of my association with Wikipedia and this is the first instance wherein I am in this situation. I regret getting into such a situation. Thanks in advance, and assure the community that I will be a well behaved individual in future. [[User:Archiedesai|Archiedesai]] ([[User talk:Archiedesai#top|talk]]) 12:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I hereby would like to appeal to unblock my account, which is more than 11 years old account. I analysed by block in detail and have been studying the reason of the block: I do understand that circumstantially, my actions do show that there is suspicion of sock puppetry, and the seriousness of these circumstantial findings. I assure the community that I would restrict myself from any of such activities as there is a serious possibility that I work in the office, and the internet here is shared. As regards to the users listed that are possible sock puppets of mine are not known to me as I tried to check the other users on our network. However, I am very well aware of the rule of sock puppetry within Wikipedia and the what wrong it does to the community. I assure the community that I will strictly restrict myself in getting into something like that. I will also refrain myself from using Wikipedia from my office and use it from my house wherein, such type of event doesn’t arise. I promise the community that I will indulge only in constructive editing and do everything that would be good for the community and won’t do anything that would lead to showing my behaviour as disruptive and against the rules and policies of the Wikipedia community. I therefore request your goodself to please unblock me looking into the more than 11 years of my association with Wikipedia and this is the first instance wherein I am in this situation. I regret getting into such a situation. Thanks in advance, and assure the community that I will be a well behaved individual in future. [[User:Archiedesai|Archiedesai]] ([[User talk:Archiedesai#top|talk]]) 12:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Archiedesai&oldid=1040241465"