User talk:Superheroprashast

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Aadhi has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Aadhi was changed by Superheroprashast (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882857 on 2014-10-30T12:27:29+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vishwavijay (film)

The article Vishwavijay (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article's subject is a future film that does not meet the notability guideline for films.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MJ94 (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vishwavijay (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vishwavijay (film) 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/Vishwavijay (film) 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. MJ94 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Vishwavijay (film). Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. MJ94 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Vishwavijay (film), you may be blocked from editing. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vishwavijay Movie Official Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vishwavijay Movie Official Poster.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. czar ⨹ 16:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your questions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishwavijay (film), one of the deletion arguments to avoid is that "other stuff exists"—so there may be other articles that need to be deleted too (feel free to nominate them), but we look at them one at a time and each on its own merits. As for this article, there isn't more one can do to "save" an article if it doesn't have the sources or isn't far enough along to pass the film notability criteria (as linked).

czar ⨹ 16:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vishwavijay (film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vishwavijay (film), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Vishwavijay (film), to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. See WP:POINT. We get it: you're upset your pet article was deleted. See WP:CONSENSUS: you can't always get what you want when you have to collaborate with others and follow pre-established rules. Time to move on. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. DMacks (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Badrinath Movie Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Badrinath Movie Poster.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) 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vishwavijay

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vishwavijay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vishwavijay, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tamil and Telugu. 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) 08:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vishwavijay

The article Vishwavijay has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of media coverage, claimed stars have almost no other credits

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:26, 20 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been framed for a thing I did not do at all;DMacks cheated me by deleting my article which already was approved by an other administrator. DMacks gave rubbish reasons as well.

Decline reason:

Nothing rubbish about DMacks' deletions and block. The decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishwavijay (film) is clear to delete. The fact that you've recreated the article at least twice since that decision shows that you're not getting it. only (talk) 11:08, 21 February 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.

{{Unblock|I am sorry for my mistakes. I have realised that without proper sources, I shouldn't have done it. I will recreate it only when I will get prominent and verifiable sources, otherwise I will not.}}

Welcome back after your block. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Accounts

It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts or people to support you should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publically and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Mike V • Talk 02:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chennai Circuit

The article Chennai Circuit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFF ("not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography")

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DMacks (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

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).

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

Request reason:

I agree, but its now an overdose. So please, forgive me, I won't make any more mistakes. If I make, you are free to block me, but if I find you after me unnecessarily, then you should acknowledge it.

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

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. - Vianello (Talk) 07:18, 25 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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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. DMacks (talk) 13:32, 19 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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for I didn't get the right thing. I promise I won't give any chance of complain. Because I don't intend to promote myself, but to promote things that need to be. Plus, you can check my contributions.

Decline reason:

What does "promote things that need to be" mean? You shouldn't be promoting anything. PhilKnight (talk) 15:14, 27 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).

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

Request reason:

By saying that I meant to do right things. I never wished and still I don't wish to promote anything. So, help and forgive me, please!

Decline reason:

Considering you were just using User:Maduraimalli as a sockpuppet account less than 24 hours ago, I see no reason to unblock this account as it continues to go against Wikipedia policy. only (talk) 11:18, 29 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).

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

Request reason:

This is wrong. Where do the rules and policies go in case of other users and even your administrators, Mr one and '' Only''? I don't know anything about Maduraimalli. You are unnecessarily dragging that user between me and your so called policies.

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, a standard offer approach could be taken in this case. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 29 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.

{{Unblock|Sorry for my behavior. I promise not to do it again. I have read the guidelines and I would not do it again. Sorry once again}}

Please explain what policies you realize you violated and what kind of edits you will make in the future to assure those behaviors won't occur again. only (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realized the biggest policy I have violated is the creation of pages again and again even after their repeated deletion by Wikipedia. The kind of edits I will make will never be disruptive. Neither will I do any controversial edits to avoid clashes between me and the administrators. Also, i will not try or even think of promoting myself. I will create more pages only if I get good resources.

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) 12:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Vishwavijay concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Vishwavijay, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Vishwavijay

Hello, Superheroprashast. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Vishwavijay".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superheroprashast, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

McGeddon (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]