User talk:Ultramegasuperstar

well my last two references (ie) reference 21 and 22 in asin's page say that the movie's name is just '19th Step'. even asin's official site says so. ^[1] so i think it is '19th Step' only. not everyone can be wrong :) --Coolmukund (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs

No problem! :-)Clubover (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again - No Probs! Clubover (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ultramegasuperstar! I am Tinucherian and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

-- Tinu Cherian - 08:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tinu Cherian sir --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Try reading up on the Manual of Style, or NPOV. No "award-winning" gibberish in the lead sentence. I will let you re-revert. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. Didn't realize you were so new here. I'll take care of reverting your erroneous edits. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prabhu Deva Sundaram. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Explain removal of tag in the talk page J.Mundo (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Salim-Javed, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you again remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Fatih Akın, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been blocked for 12 hours for edit warring across various articles. This is meant largely as a restraint against disruption of those articles, not as a comment on the righteousness of your actions. Remember, edit warring does not mean strictly violating the three-revert rule. If you feel this block has been made in error, please appeal it by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talk page. When your block expires you are welcome to return to editing. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Very likely that the edit war won't continue.

Request handled by: Protonk (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting the blocking admin; it looks to me like you did indeed stop when warned. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to unblock I'm perfectly ok with that. I blocked both accounts because things seemed to be getting out of hand pretty quickly and both sides had been reverting/re-reverting over the disputed material (both the removal and the tagging). It was literally to prevent future disruption rather than a note on explicitly poor past behavior. I'd unblock myself but the template looks unwieldy. :) Protonk (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me before these 12 hours expire. It's just embarrassing me and i would have a bad stand infront the community, if it just stays as it is in the block log :( --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Sorry, figured Daniel would be around much more quickly than that. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks! --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this whole mess got out of hand. And please remember, the block isn't a mark of shame (as much as some might view it as one...). Good luck editing in the future. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep this in my head, thanks again for your well wishes :-) --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nairsan (film) v Nair San (film)

I didn't want to make a big fuss, but having found numerous problems with english translation of Indian films, I naturally tried variations of the spelling when doing a google. When I did the old seperate the sylables check.... BINGO. Combining that with Chan's name showed a treasure trove of potential sources for expansion. The website may be called nairsan.com, but even it lists the film as Nair San. That the film is getting lots of press coverage is great, and pushes the general notability guideline, but find some sources that say the filming has either finished, is currently filming, or that it will begin filming very very soon. That is the only weakness with the article. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find more reliable sources for the shooting. After i replied at the deletion page, I myself got a second thought about this whole thing again. I'm pretty sure now, that the real title is Nair San - not Nairsan! --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did some further sourcing. Got to get ready for work, but you may find something suitable at google news or an extensive google search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it to improve the article. Great thanks for your kind help! --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help out. Good luck to you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil People

Hi, Thanks for letting me know. But It seems you changed the Current picture with yours. So I did not edit it. Anyway another user asked me to put up the old typical Tamil Family picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop reverting Filmfare Awards from the lead of A.R Rahman. Filmfare has been proved to be one of the most prominent and veteran film award functions in India. This issue is quite controversial so I suggest you to just stop it here, else you'll be blocked immediately. So remember it was the last warning.

As for order, it should be from list important to most important, as it is done in several featured articles.

And one more thing. Don't you ever dare call someone's edits vandalism when it is not. I hope for you that you got it all well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I failed up to being reliable sources? I have many MANY sources, so don't make me laugh and don't make me request a check user on you and your IP cause I start suspecting.

"The Filmfare awards are one of the most prominent film awards in the country." [1] - here you have a great source. I don't talk about its being the Indian Oscars but its national prominence, which is very well established. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says "in" the country, not "of" the country. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference, don't make up stories to build your POV. Are you a sock puppet? Of whom? Of this anon 195...? Of Clubover?

Don't worry it will be checked. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on A. R. Rahman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Kralizec! (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why exactly 31 h? Is this really appropriate? I didn't get a 3RR warning by anyone, hence I thought, people support my edits due to WP:3RR page ("revert obvious vandalism immediately"). According to this lines 3RR doesn't apply in this case. I'm a little bit confused about the outcome, although i understand, that I was blocked. Why then write such sentence in the incidents page? I wouldn't have done the reverts then.. please reconsider at least the length of the block time.

Decline reason:

You did get a warning; it remains on your talkpage above the block notice. And the edits which you repeatedly reverted are conceivably controversial, relating as they do to the importance of the FilmFare awards, but they were certainly not vandalism.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:54, 8 March 2009 (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

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).

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

Request reason:

YellowMonkey blocked me 1 month for sockpuppetry. There is no way, that I'm a sockpuppet. This is my only nick here, and there will be no other. Please de-admin YellowMonkey for this chauvinistic behaviour. I suspect, he is helping User:Shshshsh in the Talk:A. R. Rahman case. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious sockpuppet. Should probably be indef blocked. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:21, 10 March 2009 (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 a very questionable block. Even if he had different usernames or IP's, he did nothing wrong at all. Sockpuppetry is considered illegal, if it's abused. And this is not the case here. This may also be a revenge attack on this user, because the suspected IP may had filed the incident against YellowMonkey recently, couple of days ago. I support a de-admin of User:YellowMonkey --Bollywood-Turk (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your support. It's not the first time Yellowmonkey blocked me for sockpuppeting. As soon as somebody tries to discuss something seriously he came in and blocked and blocked to back the others "established" people. He didn't provide any good reason. I have just one time abused a sockpuppet. Immediately I got a 3 month block from him. It's like he is a sadist. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH I forgot, now I got "only" 1 month. Why? Because he needs to hide the past. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sockpuppets are not illegal.

Decline reason:

Declined due to the overabundance of personal attacks in the comments below. This block happened because of your own behavior and you need to address it. Mango juice^talk 14:24, 12 March 2009 (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.

He is obviously a coward. There are currently two unblock requests against YellowMonkey blocks. The other one also suspect a bias of YellowMonkey towards established members. I wonder, how somebody can do this kind of things for years without any consequences. From what I know, all editors of Wikipedia should be treated equal. YellowMonkey is an absolute Anti-Admin. see User talk:Friedricer. Kind of surprising, that this is the exactly same issue. "Illegal" sockpuppets, a YellowApe fabrication, without any legal support by wikipedia policies.. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. this is written in wikipedia policies:

Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.

--Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making allegations against Bollywood-Turk. He is 100 percent NOT a sockpuppet of me. This is just another attempt to protect YellowApes status. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stop me making "personal attacks", then a warning would be sufficient. I think my anger is quite understandable in light of the whole story I was going through til now with this admin. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Admins are pretty confused about the block. First it was sockpuppetry, now it's my behaviour, which seems not to be appropriate for sensible people like admins, although I actually addressed this issue in my last statement. I urge everybody to understand my behaviour, and not to respond with a block because of this. In exchange, I'm willing to talk in a good manner. In this new atmosphere, I start with an apologize to everyone, whom I hurt with my statements. Sorry. Hopefully now someone will handle the initial problem here, the reason why I got blocked. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We're not confused about the reason for your block; it's that you keep making your case worse for yourself. You started with edit warring, then you started using sockpuppets, and now you're making personal attacks. All of these are blockable offenses by themselves, and added together they're just convincing us further that this block was well placed. If you are willing to behave, then you can start by retracting the attacks you've made above, and address each of the issues why you were blocked: why you were edit warring and what steps you'll take to avoid that in the future; why you started socking and a commitment not to do so again; and an honest apology concerning the attacks and another commitment to keep your emotions under control. So far you have not done any of this, and so you remain blocked for now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 12 March 2009 (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.

Ok, this was the last unblock request. I did say, that sockpuppets are not illegal. I did say sorry to all, who i may have harmed. I accepted already the edit war punishment. I don't know, what to say now, because there is nothing to say anymore, although it's quite interesting how admins work together to protect themselves. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect this page indefinitely

Thanks. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R. A. Albert

The article R. A. Albert has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, notability therefore unclear

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nairsanmovieposter.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nairsanmovieposter.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nairsanmovieposter.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nairsanmovieposter.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.asinonline.com/upcomingmovies.htm

[1] ttp://www.asinonline.com/upcomingmovies.htm

[1]