User talk:Ficusindica

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been accused of "abuser of multiple accounts" (noted on my talk page). However, I am simply an user of multiple accounts and not an abuser. The question arose when I used an account of mine, Noaccount2564895, to edit the article on the National Anthem of South Ossetia. At the time, an user named Kashmiri removed both the Latin transliteration and a newly added Georgian script. To show to Kashmiri that a transliteration that follows a transliteration scheme is not subject to WP:OR, I wanted to refer to the Anthem of Russia. Then putting my interest on the National Anthem of Russia, I found that people changed the transliteration two times without giving any information the scheme used or reason for change. That's when my account was associated with a sockpuppeter called Diabedia, because he is also interested in transliterations of Cyrillic scripts, especially BGN/PCGN, used on the Russian anthem.

As can be seen, my association with Diabedia was totally circumstantial. I am not him. Given the passion of Wikipedia investigators, they simply forget to simply compare IP addresses.

The only reason I use multiple accounts is to preserve a certain degree of privacy over my interests, and not to violate any rules on proper conduct.

I have not done anything listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

Thank you.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry. Whether you're Diabedia or not, it's obvious you're engaging in block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am appealing a block, not evading it. Since the original reason for my block, association of my account with a previous sockpuppeter, is false, I request that the block on my IP is lifted. There is no need to follow through with a disciplinary procedure as I have done no wrong. As I already mentioned, I did not violate any norm or regulation. Ficusindica (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You edited Sanskrit with multiple accounts, in violation of WP:SOCK. WP:SO may be a possibility, which requires zero edits for 6 months. Yamla (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2018 (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 is working through their socks, appealing from each one. User:Noaccount2564895 has already had their TPA and UTRS access revoked. They have been told that WP:SO is their only way back. I suggest TPA being revoked here too. Just Chilling (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Haj Amin al-Husseini, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ficusindica. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit edits

I glanced through your recent edits to the article, and while I haven't looked through the content changes in any detail, I noticed that you removed some scholarly citations and added reference to myindiagloryindia.com, which is clearly not an acceptable source on the subject. Was that intentional or an oversight? It would help if you would explain your edits on the article talk page, and in future, use edit-summaries to briefly describe the content of and reasoning behind your edits in article-space. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

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 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage suggestions

Ficus, may I suggest that when you post at Talk:Sanskrit (and other talk pages in the future), try to:

make one concrete point
cite a reference that directly supports that point
limit yourself to 1 topic and (say) 2-3 posts/day

Recently you have been commenting dozens of times/day at the page; often jumping from topic to topic; rarely citing sources (which in this case need to be academic books/articles); and, even in cases when you do cite sources, they often don't support what you say. Frankly, you are coming across as a crank and many editors there have started to simply ignore you. My impression though is that you have some useful knowledge on the subject, and if you would only slow down and learn to follow these basic tips, you could help improve the article (not that everything in it will ever be to your/mine/MSW's liking; if that is what is desired we can start a blog). Hope you will consider this advice. Abecedare (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]