User talk:Paniraja

Hi

Paniraja, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Paniraja! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Van Damme

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Jean-Claude Van Damme, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.

In addition, here are a few tips to make your edits go more smoothly:

When adding material to a section, read the section first to make sure that that material is not already mentioned. The Expendables 2 is already mentioned in the Lead of that article.

Make sure the material is relevant to the article topic and section. None of box office grosses of Van Damme's other films, including his starring roles, are mentioned, so it isn't really relevant to do so with the films you mentioned, which were supporting roles or voice roles.
Names of months are proper nouns, and should be capitalized.
When adding numbers expresses in monetary figures, make sure that you include the monetary unit. "290 million" or "666 million" does not inform the reader of the amount with the symbol "$".

If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I hope it didn't come across wrong. Feel free to drop me a line any time you have a question or need help. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing to NYU article very similar to edits belonging to proven sockpuppets

As discussed in various areas including here and multiple sockpuppet investigations, several accounts suspected of belonging to one user have engaged in disruptive editing to the NYU and NYU-Poly articles, including but not limited to the addition of an excessive number of minor details about NYU-Poly, which result in, among other issues, a particularly disproportionate amount of information about NYU-Poly in the NYU article, and an unacceptable amount of typographical and grammar-related errors. Since then, several users have reported these accounts and the accounts have been proven to be sockpuppets that were subsequently blocked as a result of violating Wikipedia's policies through disruptive editing via multiple accounts. The edits by your account appear to be very similar to the aforementioned edits. If you are a sockpuppet of these accounts and you continue to engage in the aforementioned disruptive editing, your account is likely to be investigated and potentially blocked. Given that you are the same person behind these accounts, you should have learned by now that this type of disruptive editing is not welcome on Wikipedia. Please take heed of this notice. Thanks. --Schiez (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. Thank you.-- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 16:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverted vandalism"

Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism in your edit summaries, when it appears merely to be editing at odds with your possibly biased point of view. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. I restored some of the sourced information(by using cut/paste) that was originally contributed by the sock puppet and that is why I was wrongly suspected of being a sock puppet, despite being proved innocent once. I work to protect the integrity of information. Thanks and best regards Paniraja Upgraded! ^{Tag me!} 00:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked because a checkuser has confirmed that the accounts are linked and not just because of the behavioral similarities.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please check again. There is absolutely no way that can happen. There must be some misunderstanding. Thanks again

Decline reason:

Checkuser is pretty reliable, and I notice that you also said you were definitely not a sockpuppet when you were User:Polyalum1 and User:Mambo420. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:09, 7 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. This is the only account I ever created in Wikipedia. I must have been mistaken because I did cut/paste. Please don't let this injustice happen -- Paniraja Upgraded! ^{Tag me!} 01:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As mentioned in your previous unblock requests, the checkuser evidence shows that you are the same user. It does not look at the edits, but the location/id of the computer/IP etc - if I am in London, England and another user is in London, Canada and I cut/copy/paste their edits, the checkuser data will show that I am not the same user. If I am the same user, but logged in under a different account (or anonymously), then the checkuser data will show this. You have been found to be a sockpuppet, not a copy-and-paster. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:10, 7 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I only have one account, besides the person who checked me actually took off the hold of User:Badmachine several times because she knows him. User:Badmachine then had to be banned by the Arbitration Committee. My case is totally different, I am a very constructive editor. It wouldn't take me long to become an administrator. I noticed that once a user gets blocked, no one really wants to take the hold off. I see that the user who accused me (User:Marco Guzman, Jr himself is a sock of User:Dabackgammonator and is indeed a hired promoter of Cal Poly, Ponoma Marco Guzman, Jr on an article . Under the user name Dabackgammonator, he vandalised Vanderbilt University article[1] and Mexican universities [2] among others. He was warned by several editors. He also created many artricles of Cal Poly under this name, which don't belong in Wiki. As can be seen from his sock's talk-page [3] and his current talk page [4], Cal Poly has a huge team of promoters who edit Wiki. User talk:Marco Guzman, Jr also warned many administrators of bad behavior while being uncivil himself. ( Administrator User:Drmies is one victim of his abuse[5] ). User talk:Marco Guzman, Jr continues to delete updated informations, such as new rankings and other stuff from the NYU-Poly article, keeping the article in bad shape and therefore creating a bad impression of the University. I can't figure out the reason for his vendetta against NYU-Poly.... maybe he got rejected or expelled from the college in the past. If you see my history, you will see that I removed weasel and peacock terms from many pages. Being a student of NYU-Poly, I think it is very important to clean up the article. I am a very constructive editor and bocking me only hurts Wikipedia

Decline reason:

Your discussing other editors is merely a red-herring. Your account was clearly technically linked to another account. Combine that with your edits, and it's painfully obvious. Your attempts to distract administrators from this fact by discussing another editor does not assist your case - merely harms your arguments. Blockign you PREVENTS damage, and is merely treating you the same way we treat all members of the community who are unwilling to follow the policies they agreed to. Re-read WP:GAB and recognize that a future non-compliant unblock request will lead to this talkpage being locked from your use to to abuse of the unblock process (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:17, 20 November 2012 (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.