User talk:Shivamevolution

Shivamevolution, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Shivamevolution! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shivam Patil.
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. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mentabolism (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Shivam Patil (August 8)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shivam Patil.
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. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 15:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Shivam Patil was accepted

Shivam Patil, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Shivam Patil. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Your additions are promotional and not written in an encyclopaedic tone; please propose changes to the talk page. LGA _talk^edits 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, tone fixed. --Shivamevolution (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you have, but I am now not going to edit the page due to WP:3RR, There are still sections unsourced and it is still promotional. LGA _talk^edits 23:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could help me out and bring attention to which bits are still promotional? I'll also cut out anything that's unsourced, though I don't know if there is any reliable reference for Shivam Patil's education on the internet. Also kindly remove the sections you feel require citations or sources, reducing the article to a 2 line stub makes no sense. There's a lot of referenced information you remove when you do that. --Shivamevolution (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Blogs are not reliably published sources. Patil is not a reliable source for self promotional claims that he won awards. see WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shivam Patil. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Despite an earlier block for edit warring, albeit with the use of sockpuppets, you seem to be returning to the same behavior after the expiry of the block. If you continue to do so, and/or use Wikipedia as a fansite or hagiography promoter, you will be blocked again. —SpacemanSpiff 15:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I just felt determining the number of reviews that should be on the page in an arbitrary manner, without seeing the differing perspectives provided, was a tad too much. I think consensus has been reached now, but kindly have a look at the edits to determine if there's anything at all that is hagiographic. Eitherways, do have a look at the talk page of the user disputing multiple well-cited edits I made. There's plenty of complaints from others there, including a final warning. I was only expanding the article here when the unnecessary dispute began.--Shivamevolution (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one, but multiple users have tried to clean up this article after you as you seem to repeatedly add every individual positive mention of the person here. This is not a place to post a resume or hagiography, Wikipedia articles follow a neutral perspective which also includes identifying what's relevant etc. At least two different people have reverted you today, but you seem to keep carrying on, not reading the edit summaries, not bothering to open a talk page discussion etc. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll keep that in mind, although I've consciously tried keeping it neutral. The reason it looks like that is because the only sources I find are all positive mentions. Any way, I think the editors have reached some extent of consensus for now. The thing is, while I'm trying to contribute in an encyclopedic way and expanding the page, it doesn't help that someone comes around and just reduces the article to a 2-line stub, erasing a lot of well-referenced data. In other cases, there are bad edits, major grammatical errors, or vandalizing. So when I revert those, it looks like I'm edit warring. I will post on the talk page the next time there is a dispute, thank you for the pointer.--Shivamevolution (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shivam Patil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coke, Eno and Airtel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in which you are named is taking place at ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Report_of_a_.22Legal_threat.22) regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell your fellow Shivam fans not to violate copyright, here or on Wikimedia Commons

Your [friend's] addition [of the same material that you had previously added] to Wikimedia Commons has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry and disruptive editing (see discussion at WP:ANI). 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. Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know why you think this was sock puppetry, because the other userID involved is not mine. I own the image that was uploaded, but was not sure why it was taken down in the first place. If somebody else re-uploaded that image for the same purpose, I have no issues with it, because like I said, I own it and it ought to be on the wiki page. I don't know how this is being looked at as "disruptive" editing, because the page Shivam Patil is satisfactory and there are no editing issues right now. I still don't understand why I have been blocked indefinitely. Who was socking, and what exactly was disrupted?

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2013 (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 is what you tried to say the last time around when I blocked you for sock/meatpuppetry. Now, this socking has been confirmed by Checkuser on Commons. The different accounts are colluding with each other to a level of just stopping short of finishing each other's sentences. Since I've already blocked you for this once I'm not going to review the unblock request and will let any other admin decide. —SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 29 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

The "collusion" that I have been blocked indefinitely for, was only in regards with the image. As I'm specifying, I have clicked and OWN the image in question. Seeing as he was a regular editor of Shivam Patil, I asked Prakhar to upload it for me when the block on the page was lifted on the 24th of September (because my personal internet was down for 3 days and the phone is not a good device to edit from), but it got taken off because the copyright claim wasn't well stated. Then apparently, Prakhar re-uploaded it to commons from his own userID: I have NO issues with this because, I repeat, I want to make the image available to commons, as I myself clicked it. In any other regard, there has been no collusion and you are simply citing a confirmation bias here, because I do not make edits as per the Prakhar userID, I independently edit this page as per guidelines, and am continuously striving to meet all advice that admins/other editors are giving me. You can do a checkuser of the two IDs independently editing Shivam Patil, because an IP check will show that the two of us are not even from the same city. Different people, no sock puppetry involved, no disruption took place (the page is properly edited right now with no disputes), the only collusion happened with regards to the image, because I did not know how to upload MY image onto the page, I told another user to do it for me. If this was a genuine case of sock puppetry, I would not appeal my block again, I wouldn't need to. But I am a different person who edits wiki independently, please do not block me indefinitely, I will not collude with any other wiki user for even any minor issue. At least limit the block to a limited duration, I request that much. There is no deceit involved here, I want to sincerely edit wiki, and will not cause any disruptions/disputes/legal threat issues ever again, nor will I collude with any other user.

Decline reason:

To sockpuppetry, belligerent attitude to other editors, copyright infringement, using Wikipedia for promotion, making threats, and general disruptive editing, we can now add lying to try to hide what you have been doing (see below). I see no reason whatever to think that unblocking you would benefit the Wikipedia project. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2013 (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.

re "I want to sincerely edit wiki," what I see is, "I want to sincerely edit Shivam Patil, particularly to add lots of promotional content about him and his movie." Am I missing something? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Shivam Patil's page is certainly on my priority list. But I'm slowly figuring what counts as promotional material and what doesn't. Him, indian actors and films is an area I'm quite familiar with, so once this page reached satisfactory level I will move on to edit/refine others in the category.--Shivamevolution (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to review your unblock request, but there are a few details that need clarification to help decide the issue. One of these is that you said that your brother created an account to help edit the article you had created, and it would be very helpful if you could say what username your brother's account has. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the accounts involved with the copyright photo issues, are outlined in this thread at commons -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The userID my brother created when I had asked him to edit the page (because apparently my edits were 'advertising' in nature) was aryanfire2013. It was subsequently blocked because of wiki's guidelines against using multiple userID's from the same IP address. The admin who made that block stated that this wasn't allowed.--Shivamevolution (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for clarifying that. That is the account that I thought you meant, but I decided that, rather than simply declining the unblock request, I would first give you a chance to prove me wrong. Instead, you have proved exactly what I suspected. Since in several edits, such as this one, you said that it was your own account, this is clearly a classic WP:BROTHER case, except for the unusual detail that it is an older brother, instead of the more usual little brother (however, it is sometimes a cousin, son, friend, husband, or wife, and very occasionally even a sister, so an older brother is not that surprising). An interesting feature of little-brother sockpuppeteers is that they almost always find it difficult to keep track of what story they have told, so that sooner or later there is some contradiction or other in their account of who did what. And if they won't cooperate by doing that on their own, quite often a carefully chosen question will entice them into providing that sort of help. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now a legal threat —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats here carry no weight whatsoever; but issuing them ensures that you will not be unblocked, under any circumstances, until you make a clear and unambiguous statement here that you withdraw any and all legal threat , action or pending action against any Wikipedia editor in relation to any edits made here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]