User talk:Sanjoy64

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Shekhar Chatterjee (July 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

.

To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cerebellum (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sanjoy64, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Orphaned non-free image File:ShekharPic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ShekharPic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ShekharPhoto.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ShekharPhoto.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:ShekharPhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ShekharPhoto.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shekhar Chatterjee (September 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shekhar Chatterjee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Garcia v. Google has been accepted

Garcia v. Google, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

j⚛e decker ^talk 18:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Your userpage was copy-pasted from User:CutestPenguin without attribution. That's technically a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. Furthermore, it contained numerous claims that applied to CutestPenguin, but were simply wrong about you - such as the alternate account, the user rights, or even the committed identity. There's nothing wrong with duplicating the style of someone else's userpage, but please do not copy-paste the entire content. Thank you. Huon (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:29, 2 November 2014 review of submission by Jena fuller

Jena fuller (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Rusty Anderson Afternoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I see my page was declined. Can you give me any specifics that are standing in my way? Is it because I used Facebook for a reference on one statement? I'm also stumped on the notability qualification because this band has two notable musicians and had a number one on national charts recently. Any concrete instructions on what to revise or delete would be great!

Jena fuller (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing drafts

While we appreciate your attempts to help with the backlog at WP:Articles for creation, reviewing drafts is no easy task and requires significant amounts of experience with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. For that reason a formal requirement for reviewers of having made 500 live edits to articles was introduced, a requirement you fall short of. Until you have gathered more experience, I would ask you to please stop reviewing drafts. In fact, many of your draft-related edits had to be reverted. Huon (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning Sanjoy64, please do not review drafts or otherwise interfere with the Draft process. Decline messages should be left on rejected drafts for historical purposes, and not deleted until the draft is approved and moved to the Article space. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for help

Sanjoy64 - you asked for help with an article, but did not specify which article. EBY (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting on other people's talk pages

Sanjoy64, I'm sure you've noticed that I have reverted multiple edits to people's talk pages in the last few days - this is because you are deleting text on their walls rather than type out a new message. This is not acceptable, and if you continue to do so I will request administrative action be taken on your account. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Shekhar Chatterjee has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Shekhar Chatterjee. Thanks! EBY (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at User talk:EBY3221. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Huon (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Primefac's warning you keep removing others' talk page comments. That's disrupting the communication between other editors. You should either use the "New section" link at the top of the talk page to start a new section for your comments or, if a discussion on that topic already exists on the talk page, edit that section and add your comments at the bottom of the section. You should not remove others' comments, and you really should not mix others' comments and your own as you did in the example I linked above. Huon (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shekhar Chatterjee has been accepted

Shekhar Chatterjee, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

j⚛e decker ^talk 18:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop!

Please immediately stop nominating pages for deletion, you have nominated numerous pages for deletion for articles about people, this appears to be disruptive. If you continue to nominate pages, you will be temporarily blocked from editing to prevent disruption. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sreelakshmi Suresh has been nominated Four times for deletion, and kept all four times. And you have nominated it again, immediately after I told you not to nominate any more articles for deletion. You obviously do not understand Wikipedia policies, or how articles for deletion works. If you nominate any more pages for deletion you will be blocked for disruptive editing. This is your final warning. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shekhar Chatterjee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shekhar Chatterjee 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/Shekhar Chatterjee until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. TheMesquito^buzz 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonating other users

Stop changing your usernamne in your signature, as you did here, here, here, and presumably here. I know that you are trying to make it look like it is someone else making the comments, however it is blindingly obvious that it is you doing it. This is effectively vandalism, continuning to do this will get you blocked from editing. Make sure that your signature has your username in it, not that of someone else.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome

Sanjoy64, your behaviour over the past few days has been, to say the least, slightly troublesome. It was bad enough that you were pestering every reviewer in reach to have your draft accepted, resulting in a temporary block due to your talk page behaviour. Nominating every person who has the surname "Chatterjee" for deletion and continually modifying or altering notable young people's pages borders on vandalism. I do not know why you are editing this way, but it has to stop. You should only be editing Wikipedia constructively, not attempting to make your son appear amazing by deleting the competition. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in a series of disruptive edits. Others include:

Unambiguous conflict of interest editing regarding the article about your son
Putting AfD tags on articles about people with the same surname as your son
Removal of properly sourced content from any article about a young CEO who may have a claim to being a CEO at a younger age than your son
Logging out so you can complete the exact same edits anonymously with an attempt to avoid scrutiny

You have been warned and blocked for this sort of thing in the past, you are now blocked from editing for two weeks. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:23, 8 March 2015 (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).

Sanjoy64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I acknowledge my mistake and promise not to recommit them and follow wiki guidelines and make a healthy discussion with you all.

Decline reason:

So... what mistake would that be, exactly? Unless you explain what you think you were blocked for, there's no way for use to know whether you understand how things work here or not. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:16, 9 March 2015 (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).

Sanjoy64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for disruptive editing the articles. I acknowledge my mistake and will not repeat in future. Sanjoy64 (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no compelling reason to unblock you early, certainly no compelling reason exists to unblock you prior to the AfD on Shekhar. I'm far from convinced there's actually a need for you to be editing Wikipedia ever, given you're effectively a single purpose account promoting your son. You have failed to really explain that you understand the problems with your behaviour or what changes you would make and have not even started to explain where you would edit if Shekhar's article is deleted. I'm also concerned that there are now sockpuppets coming out of the woodwork to disrupt the AfD and to make it easier to deal with those, keeping you blocked at least for the duration of the AfD would be sensible. Nick (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2015 (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).

Sanjoy64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I promise not to make any disruptive editing. Please give a chance to speak up in the Afd and moreover I am unable to add more sources to the article being asked in afd. I just want to give a clarification on the same. I am satisfied that the discussion is going in a healthy way for Afd for Shekhar Chatterjee.

Please note the point of User:Abecedare

According to him, city supplements of Times of India is an unreliable source and stating that subject fails to meet WP:GNG thereby requesting for deletion of article but there is no mention of such point in WP:GNG.

Moreover, articles such as Sindhuja Rajamaran, whose all claims were based upon a single source of Hindustan Times ans that too in city section of Lucknow and still acceptable by User:Abecedare?

The same goes for articles of Sreelakshmi Suresh and Suhas Gopinath.

Please check the same on the articles. All sources on these 3 articles of Sindhuja Rajamaran, Sreelakshmi Suresh and Suhas Gopinath are in the city section of there respective newspapers. All other editors are following the comment made by User:Abecedare blindly. Please check and confirm. It would be a great favor.

Decline reason:

Given that you're a single person account with a clear agenda, I'm not convinced that unblocking you is in the best interests of the encylopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2015 (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.

Sanjoy, for reference, the existence of the articles Sindhuja Rajamaran, Sreelakshmi Suresh, and Suhas Gopinath does not automatically mean that an article about Shekhar should exist. Equally, the deletion of Shkhar's article does not automatically mean that those other three should be deleted either. Each article is discussed and evaluated on its own merits. Further to this, once you are unblocked, or your block expires, if you nominate articles about other young businesspeople for deletion will be seen as disruptive. You start this unblock request by saying that you were disruptive, but then you continue by calling out other editors opinions, and saying that your disruptive edits were justified. Regarding Abecdare's comment in the AfD regarding the reliability of the reference in question, you must understand that the General Notability Guidelines cannot be all inclusive, and include every possible scenario for every possible reference. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right enough in your way. But the debate on afd has been carved in some other way stating TOI is not a reliable source. I want to add other sources that cover the article on national level and significantly meet WP:GNG. It would be a great relief if I am unblocked and given a chance to speak up in afd as well as add more references to the article. Recently, Shekhar has been invited to AIESEC Annual Youth to Business Summit as chief guest and I have sources for that. But unfortunately I am unable to speak up due to this block. Thank you so much kelapstick Sanjoy64 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015 Block Evasion

It is obvious that you are evading the block currently in place on your account, with the aim of preventing the article on Shekhar being deleted. I understand you feel strongly about this, but if you do not stop disrupting Wikipedia, evading this block, and trying to influence improperly the deletion process, the most likely outcome is that your behaviour will influence people into supporting the deletion of the article, either consciously or sub-consciously. The most sensible thing you can do right now is stop evading this block, and sit out the deletion discussion until it concludes. Please, do not make things worse for your article with this continued impudent behaviour. Nick (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjoy64. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Nick. Actually trully speaking I was little bit upset with harsh behavior of Primefac as he was targeting me personally. The article wasn't discussed even once on it's talk page and directly listed for deletion so I thought to report to Senior authorities. I think you are the third admin person to understand my situation. I will definitely respect your request. But if I have any confusion or something to say to you how can I say? Sanjoy64 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your email

You argued that [a]ll sources on these 3 articles of Sindhuja Rajamaran, Sreelakshmi Suresh and Suhas Gopinath are in the city section of there respective newspapers. Not so.

Let's start with the easiest: Suhas Gopinath. Sources include the Sydney Morning Herald and City News from Singapore - that's not local coverage, that's international coverage.
Sreelakshmi Suresh: Sources include AsiaOne from Singapore, and I see no indication either of these two articles is from the city, either. The other two seem to be at least Kerala state-level editions, not city editions. Anyway, international coverage.
Sindhuja Rajamaran arguably is the worst-sourced of the three articles, but once we realize that we (and some sources) misspell her name and look for Sindhuja Rajaraman instead, we find sources aplenty, ranging from the Economic Times via Indan Express all the way to De Standaard. (For an example of a source using the wrong name, see Cosmopolitan. International coverage again. So three out of three subjects you pointed out as supposedly less notable than Shekhar Chatterjee have enjoyed not just State-wide or national, but international news coverage. Has Shekhar Chatterjee? Huon (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can still edit your talk page, and I'd prefer to keep our conversation on-wiki. That said, the deletion discussion shows an overwhelming consensus that Shekhar Chatterjee isn't notable, and it will not be extended for two weeks merely because sources might emerge in that time. Besides, Yourstory.com and Youthkiawaaz do not look like particularly reliable sources to me and would be unlikely to sway that deletion discussion. Huon (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block Evasion

In light of your most recent block evasion causing disruption to Wikipedia, I have escalated your block from 2 weeks to indefinite. If/when you show you can behave responsibly, this block can be reviewed and perhaps lifted. Block evasion with the single aim of disrupting this project will absolutely not be tolerated any further. Nick (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO User:Nick

In reply to my Block Evasion by Nick.

Will you please tell me what's your problem? There is no reason at all to escalate the block to indefinite. I have been quite since your last warning over my talk page and even though you escalating the block? Excuse me? Will you please tell me what's wrong with you? What's your problem? Why are you behind me for no reason at all? That's horrible. I want the reason to extend the block to indefinite. You have no rights to block without any reason at all.

I am waiting for your clarification asap. I do believe that you will now even block me to edit my talk page. But really that enough, I really don't care whatever you do because it's so common to see Admins on Wiki misusing their powers. I want clarification for escalating the block.

Sanjoy64 (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is you, that's you evading your existing block (as you have done countless times already) and it's for this reason you are indefinitely blocked now. You've admitted to block evasion in your response above, in fact, and that alone is sufficient justification for indefinitely blocking you. Nick (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY Excuse Me? I have nothing to do with Shiv Nadar. Nor I care who the hell is he. Why will I edit that page? It really makes no sense to me why the hell I disrupt articles that are non of my concern. Sanjoy64 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

{{unblock}}

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShekharPic.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ShekharPic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. XXN, 19:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]