User talk:Sameershan

Adding reference to Wikipedia articles

Hello Sameershan! Please do not forget to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Adding well-formatted references is easy.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite". Click on it.
Then click on "templates".
Choose the most appropriate template and then fill all relevant details.

This will add a well-formatted reference, which will allow other people to see where you got your information from. You can read more about this at Help:Edit toolbar, or watch this video: File:RefTools.ogv. Thanks and regards —DBig Xray 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to use this message place {{subst:User:DBigXray/ref}} on User_talk

DBig Xray 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Sameershan, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

I noticed that you tagged the page Mangalyam Thanthunanena for speedy deletion with the reason "No valid sources". However, "No valid sources" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can propose the page for deletion if it appears to be an uncontroversial matter, or take the page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for discussion on the merits if you still seek deletion. Thanks! Iffy★Chat -- 07:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parvatii Nair

If you have comments or concerns on Parvatii Nair or her filmography, go ahead and start a discussion on the talk page of the article and get WP:CONSENSUS to improve the article. thanks--DBig Xray 12:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok Sir I will do it.Thank you Sameershan (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions

Talkback

Hello, Sameershan. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 06:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DBig Xray 06:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Abhinand1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:09, 4 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Its unfair. I haven used any other accounts. Sameershan (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'd be surprised how often we hear that. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhinand1234. Is this the original account? Try again after abstaining for 6 months. I would see a WP:TBAN on Parvatii Nair and WP:SPI as minimum requirements at that time. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:59, 4 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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 13:00, 5 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.

Dlohcierekim (talk behavioral cues such as the "CheckUser me to prove me innocent" and confirmed socks' ways of communicating demonstrate that Sameershan is a sock of Abhinand1234. I am sorry to say admin misunderstood. the reason itself wrong. I was not saying about checkuser me . I was telling about checkuser my Spi complaint (that I gave about user let there be sunshine) [1] Sameershan (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made a retaliatory SPI complaint about another user. You will need to stay away from SPI if unblocked. If this is a sock account, you should appeal on your original account.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop emailing me. Any discussions can be here, in the open.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim (talk) ok Sameershan (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:37, 21 October 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.

Yamla (talk) Dlohcierekim (talk)

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia,

because This is my only account . I edited mainly Talk:Neerali page. Because I was trying to reach consious on things I believed in, And final conscious I was right, some things are still wrong there. my point of view was opposite of user let there be sunshine.Many other editors have same mind as me who discuss for the same need, they all are blocked as socket puppet of Abinand. finally its me.Actually we are all fighting for the right choice, that considered as behavioural evidence. pls check out [2] my other edit was in Parvatii Nair page my discussion started mainly because there was movies in her filmography she is not acted Talk:Parvatii_Nair#Parvatii_Nair_Filmography please check out. I took advice from another experienced editor [3] . see discussion Parvatii Nair . I started a discussion about minor films in [4] too [see Policy about adding Minor/unimportant appearances in a Actor's filmography section in a page] . I love to contribute in wikipedia future also mainly WikiProject_Film . I know this block is by misunderstanding . pls have a good look at it , and reconsider unblocking me Thank you Sameershan (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could explain to me how you found the Parvatii Nair article, how so many new editors with new accounts also found this article and made substantially similar edits as explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhinand1234, and your thought process when you filed the retaliatory SPI. I am also concerned about your statement that you are all "fighting" for your point of view. That gives me pause because it suggests to me that you are here to push your viewpoint, contravening the purpose of Wikipedia. Finally, I'm a little worried about your command of English – your comments here have not been very reassuring about your ability to contribute to encyclopedia articles. I don't know what to do about that, but it's something to keep in mind. In any event, I'm willing to assume good faith on socking, but I would appreciate if you would answer the questions I've posed above. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) Thank you for reconsidering my unblocking request. Neerali movie was blocked for editing for new comers when I saw some unusual things in the movie page. mainly cast.One editor was fighting for removing the main cast and starring. I read all the discussions in Neerali talk page. I understood its blocked for editing mainly becuase fight for cast adding. I was sure Nadhiya and Parvatii Nair doing important roles seeing the official posters, news articles, trailers etc. so I was trying to add them in starring and cast order. but one regular editor was talking opposite of me. and gave a SPI against me.So I researched on that user Let there be sunshine, I believed his experience in wikipedia is helping him to edit in wrong ways. I thought he has some connection against Parvatii Nair thats why he trying to remove her from starring and cast order(below)in Neerali movie.And added a film In Parvati Nair filmography that she is not acted.And his other contributions are not same as he editing in Neerali movie.that research I found out he may have other accounts for doing wrong things.thats why I gave a SPI. If my thoughts are wrong I am sorry about it. I was learning editing Wikipedia well. with the help of other experience editor I was improving my wiki learning and contributions . I am sorry if I fought for my point of view. I thought we have to reach concious by points. If I get another chance I will surely correct me.I understood I had some problems in command of English. I am in learning process. will surely improve it. Thank you Sameershan (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sameershan, thanks for your response. You haven't addressed my first and most important questions, which were: How did you find the Parvatii Nair article (a relatively low-traffic article, on the scale of things)? Do you know why so many new accounts found that article and made the same edits as you (removing the minor roles) on that article? Also, I have one follow-up question: If you are unblocked, do you see yourself editing outside of the topic area, or will you be entirely editing pages related to Parvatii Nair, Nadhiya, Neerali, etc., in order to present your point of view? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it strange that you are making the same edits as former socks ? All the previous socks did two things: 1) Rearranging cast in films she acted 2)Vandalizing her page by removing films she appeared in minor roles. These are promotional edits. No one will ever do that unless the person is herself, her PR team, a hardcore fan or someone with close contact. Here, COI was admitted by the socks. Isn't it unusual that your account was created solely to make these edits ? Isn't it strange you argue not to include minor appearance in Parvati's filmography, but not care about other actors' filmography ? Isn't removing minor roles itself strange and you just happened to have the same thought ? I bet no editor have seen such an activity in any other filmography in Wikipedia. Isn't it odd you happened to be there around same period socking was happening ? Isn't it strange that former socks had also filed SPIs against those who questioned their edits ? Of course all were coincidences. You just happened to see it, created an account, made the same edits. You defend not only you but all socks - we are all fighting for the right choice. And do you realize that your unblock explanation even sounds same as former sock [5][6]. Even choice of words such as "right choices", "fight", and accusing me "against parvati", and punctuation styles (space, full-stop, space) are same.--Let There Be Sunshine 19:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) I found Parvatii Nair article because she is one of the main cast in Neerali movie. Neerali was much awaited movie for me because its Mohanlal's Movie after a gap.Anyone who follows the movie Neerali will try to know the cast and look if the cast was added correctly.New editors may have thought the same. And she said in a interview there are films in her filmography she is not acted. [7] 13.15 secs .when I checked in her history I noticed some one trying to vandal the page. [8] this range of Ip always coming after let there be sunshine's edit. and this edits [9] some one adding Filmography to selected filmography.[10] this edit adding many films including a film that she is not acted. So I thought of correcting the filmography with the help of a experienced editor [11]. Yes my focus will be edit all articles mainly wikiproject film. Thank you Sameershan (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again a retaliatory accusation since I mentioned about his "vandalism". At least you should have an evidence before accusing someone. And deception attempts won't work here. You think too low of other editors' intelligence.--Let There Be Sunshine 15:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this to a reviewing administrator to make a final decision here. Despite the strength of the evidence supporting a finding of sockpuppetry, I think there's a possibility this account could be socking free, so I would suggest assuming good faith on that. There have been other issues with the user's edits, though (many of which have been demonstrated even on this page), and I think reasonable unblock conditions (including an SPI topic ban and potentially a ban from editing mainspace related to Indian films without consensus, broadly constructed) may be helpful. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying about my thought process.Not accusing anyone.Remember I have mentioned about same range of Ip in my SPI too.may be that range of Ip follows your edits without knowing you. Sameershan (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) Thank you Sameershan (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]