User talk:Rio Nor

Yippee (noodles) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Yippee (noodles), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir/mam, nice to meet you.

As per your concern, I had "again" reviewed all my citations and found that all sources are reliable enough for publishing.

I had searched a lot to find all the "reliable" sources.

Here, is the list of all sources that I had used:

1. Economic times 2. ITC Limited 3. Live mint 3. The hindu 4. Financial express 5. Afaqs 6. Indian tv dot com

Tell me which of them is unreliable or less reliable so that I can omit it out, because I found all of them as reliable. Rio Nor (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had again read general notability guideline and found everything is good for publishing it.

Please, can you review it again? Rio Nor (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a week to find out all sources and reviewed each of them 10 times as per your concern. What can I do more than this?

I request you to please review it yourself. Rio Nor (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yippee (noodles) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yippee (noodles) 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/Yippee (noodles) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Bobe8q8661 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobe8q8661. 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 ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2022 (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).

Rio Nor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why I am blocked?

Just because of a user named xyz reported me because he found something suspicious or something like that.

Is it the general criteria to block anyone on Wikipedia? Without much evidence.

Tell me what I had done wrong, I am just defending my article and he just banned me for no reason.

The only evidence is that I used a similar username to someone or something.

And I recreated someone's previously deleted article.

I don't think this evidence is enough/sufficient to block anyone for anything. Rio Nor (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are arguing the process, not the merits, and not denying what led to the block. Please return to your original account to request unblock. There is sufficient evidence here. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2022 (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).

Rio Nor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Firstly, I have only one account on Wikipedia from which I am hopefully defending myself.

Second, what is the evidence? Just because I had used a similar username to someone. That's it. I mean seriously, it is the evidence to block anyone.

The only reason I found is:

"See Yippee (noodles) recreation, same username style as Ian Tin (Three Letters, camel case)"

So I used a similar font to someone.

Now, my points:

Is is wrong to re-create a deleted article or something?
Is it wrong to use a username similar to the culprit one? (Similar means same font and alphabet numbers)

If yes, then I must be stay blocked...But if no, something wrong is happening here.

Rio Nor (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on my independent analysis as an SPI clerk and as the original blocking admin, I am very confident that you are Bobe8q8661. Any unblock request in which you deny that has a 0% chance of being accepted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:34, 7 June 2022 (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.

That's the evidence that Prax presented for SPI. It gives the rationale for taking a deeper look. That behavioral evidence is very clear on it's own that you're Bobe8q8661, though. On top of that, the technical information, private information only available to checkusers, matches Bobe8q8661 and past sockpuppets. Please note, that if you're caught by a checkuser again, you'll be community banned under third strike rules. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info but I strongly believe in:

Justice should be served.

And I didn't do anything wrong so why would I fear of something? Rio Nor (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Tamzin,

I don't know who you are and why you blocked someone.

But, I am not the one whom you are understanding.

On basis of your comment, you don't have right to review my blockage as you will see it from one side only.

Leave it for another admin's review and see what happen. Rio Nor (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2022 (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).

Rio Nor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(Re-creating because not satisfied by previous admin's review) Firstly, I have only one account on Wikipedia from which I am hopefully defending myself. Second, what is the evidence? Just because I had used a similar username to someone. That's it. I mean seriously, it is the evidence to block anyone. The only reason I found is:

"See Yippee (noodles) recreation, same username style as Ian Tin (Three Letters, camel case)"

So I used a similar font to someone. Now, my points: * Is is wrong to re-create a deleted article or something? * Is it wrong to use a username similar to the culprit one? (Similar means same font and alphabet numbers) If yes, then I must be stay blocked...But if no, something wrong is happening here. Rio Nor (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request was already reviewed. If you are going to keep on abusing the unblock request process, expect to lose access to your talk page. Yamla (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2022 (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.