Jump to content

User talk:Shivamevolution

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpacemanSpiff (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 29 September 2013 (→Please tell your fellow Shivam fans not to violate copyright, here or on Wikimedia Commons: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shivamevolution, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Shivamevolution! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mentabolism (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Shivam Patil (August 8)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 15:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Shivam Patil was accepted

Shivam Patil, 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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Shivam Patil. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Your additions are promotional and not written in an encyclopaedic tone; please propose changes to the talk page. LGA talkedits 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, tone fixed. --Shivamevolution (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you have, but I am now not going to edit the page due to WP:3RR, There are still sections unsourced and it is still promotional. LGA talkedits 23:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could help me out and bring attention to which bits are still promotional? I'll also cut out anything that's unsourced, though I don't know if there is any reliable reference for Shivam Patil's education on the internet. Also kindly remove the sections you feel require citations or sources, reducing the article to a 2 line stub makes no sense. There's a lot of referenced information you remove when you do that. --Shivamevolution (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Blogs are not reliably published sources. Patil is not a reliable source for self promotional claims that he won awards. see WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shivam Patil. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Despite an earlier block for edit warring, albeit with the use of sockpuppets, you seem to be returning to the same behavior after the expiry of the block. If you continue to do so, and/or use Wikipedia as a fansite or hagiography promoter, you will be blocked again. —SpacemanSpiff 15:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I just felt determining the number of reviews that should be on the page in an arbitrary manner, without seeing the differing perspectives provided, was a tad too much. I think consensus has been reached now, but kindly have a look at the edits to determine if there's anything at all that is hagiographic. Eitherways, do have a look at the talk page of the user disputing multiple well-cited edits I made. There's plenty of complaints from others there, including a final warning. I was only expanding the article here when the unnecessary dispute began.--Shivamevolution (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not one, but multiple users have tried to clean up this article after you as you seem to repeatedly add every individual positive mention of the person here. This is not a place to post a resume or hagiography, Wikipedia articles follow a neutral perspective which also includes identifying what's relevant etc. At least two different people have reverted you today, but you seem to keep carrying on, not reading the edit summaries, not bothering to open a talk page discussion etc. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I'll keep that in mind, although I've consciously tried keeping it neutral. The reason it looks like that is because the only sources I find are all positive mentions. Any way, I think the editors have reached some extent of consensus for now. The thing is, while I'm trying to contribute in an encyclopedic way and expanding the page, it doesn't help that someone comes around and just reduces the article to a 2-line stub, erasing a lot of well-referenced data. In other cases, there are bad edits, major grammatical errors, or vandalizing. So when I revert those, it looks like I'm edit warring. I will post on the talk page the next time there is a dispute, thank you for the pointer.--Shivamevolution (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shivam Patil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coke, Eno and Airtel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in which you are named is taking place at ANI

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Report_of_a_.22Legal_threat.22) regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell your fellow Shivam fans not to violate copyright, here or on Wikimedia Commons

Stop icon Your [friend's] addition [of the same material that you had previously added] to Wikimedia Commons has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry and disruptive editing (see discussion at WP:ANI). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I don't know why you think this was sock puppetry, because the other userID involved is not mine. I own the image that was uploaded, but was not sure why it was taken down in the first place. If somebody else re-uploaded that image for the same purpose, I have no issues with it, because like I said, I own it and it ought to be on the wiki page. I don't know how this is being looked at as "disruptive" editing, because the page Shivam Patil is satisfactory and there are no editing issues right now. I still don't understand why I have been blocked indefinitely. Who was socking, and what exactly was disrupted?

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 don't know why you think this was sock puppetry, because the other userID involved is not mine. I own the image that was uploaded, but was not sure why it was taken down in the first place. If somebody else re-uploaded that image for the same purpose, I have no issues with it, because like I said, I own it and it ought to be on the wiki page. I don't know how this is being looked at as "disruptive" editing, because the page [[Shivam Patil]] is satisfactory and there are no editing issues right now. I still don't understand why I have been blocked indefinitely. Who was socking, and what exactly was disrupted? |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 don't know why you think this was sock puppetry, because the other userID involved is not mine. I own the image that was uploaded, but was not sure why it was taken down in the first place. If somebody else re-uploaded that image for the same purpose, I have no issues with it, because like I said, I own it and it ought to be on the wiki page. I don't know how this is being looked at as "disruptive" editing, because the page [[Shivam Patil]] is satisfactory and there are no editing issues right now. I still don't understand why I have been blocked indefinitely. Who was socking, and what exactly was disrupted? |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 don't know why you think this was sock puppetry, because the other userID involved is not mine. I own the image that was uploaded, but was not sure why it was taken down in the first place. If somebody else re-uploaded that image for the same purpose, I have no issues with it, because like I said, I own it and it ought to be on the wiki page. I don't know how this is being looked at as "disruptive" editing, because the page [[Shivam Patil]] is satisfactory and there are no editing issues right now. I still don't understand why I have been blocked indefinitely. Who was socking, and what exactly was disrupted? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
  • This is what you tried to say the last time around when I blocked you for sock/meatpuppetry. Now, this socking has been confirmed by Checkuser on Commons. The different accounts are colluding with each other to a level of just stopping short of finishing each other's sentences. Since I've already blocked you for this once I'm not going to review the unblock request and will let any other admin decide. —SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shivamevolution&oldid=574955736"