Hello there. I wanted to let you know of this discussion on my talk page. It appears that the reasons for User:Mark Marathon's (MM) block are a bit unclear to user Anthonyhcole, and given that I asked him to apologize to me for some comments he made about me at the AN and on MM's page, and he did, I believe it appropriate for me to follow through on my side and consider his requests as stated at my talk page. Upon said consideration, I do not think it appropriate for me to take a position for or against unblocking Mr. Marathon, but I DO think it would be helpful if you could clarify if there were reasons for Mr. Marathon's block other than the dispute between him and myself at Rangeland and the ensuing AN, and if so, what they were. Would that be possible? Thank you either way, and best wishes. Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I've read Mark Marathon's page. I replied there more than once. Have you see that? DP 09:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I did. However, Anthonyhcole seems to believe that MM was blocked solely due to his edits at Rangeland, while I read your comments "The statement in the block log, and a very quick perusal of the recent edits are blatantly obvious" to indicate that other behavior besides placing tags may have been a factor? At my talk, Anthonyhcole first demanded (rudely), but now apologized (pretty much) for his behavior and politely requested that I suggest that MM be unblocked. RexxS suggested that if MM expressed a suitable reassurance as to future behavior, that could do the trick. However, I do not want to interfere with your legitimate admin action, and I did become rather irritated at MM in the matter, so I lack objectivity in this case. Thus, I was just wondering if you could help us all out with a wee bit further clarification so as to assist me in getting back on the high road and decide my next steps. ;-) . Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, IIRC it was those edits I was speaking of that led to the block. Anthony's complaint was that I had either a) read the 3RR report and acted on only 1 side, or b) that I was in some kind of friendship collusion. I even confirmed to Anthony that it was "recent changes" review that drew me to the block. I also searched out the 3RR report and clarified just that, and that someone else could issue additional blocks as required since I had not reviewed your actions. From my review of MM's page, my last post there was the end of the story ... not even sure why there was any need to rehash at this time DP 09:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your most gracious clarification. I hope this also answers Anthonyhcole's questions as well. Given that you were acting solely on MM's actions, standing alone, I believe my inquiry has concluded. I see no reason to respond further. It's a thankless job to be an admin, your efforts are appreciated. Montanabw(talk) 02:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I see you have protected the article Total Siyapaa fully. I think it was not necessary especially when the duo have stopped and are engaging in discussion on talk. —Soham (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Panda, there is this one user, Ibnebatutaji who I think might be a paid adovate. The article's talk page got an edit request— to include negative reviews for the film, it includes few reliable sources too otherwise I would have not bothered. This edit request on the talk page is getting removed by Ibnebatutaji with edit summaries that allege sock-puppetry and he hasn't proved it. So if you could please help. Thanks. —Soham (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Enquirykaro and Wisdom IT Services India Pvt Ltd for speedy deletion as it was seems to be an advertisements masquerading as articles. And it should not be ignored that the main contributors User:Enquirykaro and User:Jobsmate has been blocked from further edition, please review it as soon as possible and take the necessary action. Thank you! (take care ) WOWIndianTalk 09:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No urgency. One of my colleagues with the tools will deal with it. DP 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, i need to clarify myself for my future edits as I do not want and neither intend get into blocks.
My questions I was Blocked for 2 weeks period and no one responded for my unblock request within 2 weeks period. Why?
My edit on  adding upcoming project Happy New Year (2014 film) got me into block or rather any other future project which i had included on pages got number of warnings. In this discussion  User TheRedPenOfDoom was the only person (who I know made the request for my block) I've seen still keeping on removing the content on ONLY Indian film actors pages. This is the current discussion regard the same.  Could you please clarify me where I should stand. Because I do not want to get into any blocks again for adding a project with reliable source. Many Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact that nobody responded to your unblock request is likely twofold. First, there are possibly few admins currently reviewing unblock requests - we're all volunteers. Secondly, your unblock request was not even WP:GAB-compliant, and could not have been accepted. See WP:NOTTHEM specifically, as the moment you start blaming or mentioning other editors in YOUR unblock request, it's likely to fail.
You haven't linked to the right spot on WP:AIV, and I'm not going to go digging. You were reported for vandalism, and vandalism can take many forms. I carefully review the actions leading to the report, based on the concerns raised AND typically look at the edits of others at the same time. I CAN tell you that this warning was bogus. It was a tit-for-tat warning because YOU didn't like being warned for your actions - that's unacceptable at any time, and would have added to the length of the block in most cases. You even edit-warred on HIS page to keep it there: again, wrong and unacceptable. You then went on a streak of removing sourced figures without a single kb of discussion on the article talkpage. So, again, without reviewing the original report, there are a half-dozen reasons for your block - I guess I'm surprised it was such a short one, considering that it's your third block DP 17:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate your response. Would you please clarify to me, if I am to follow according to this discussion?  Any movie with a realiable source which have started filming can be added to actors filmography? Regard my three blocks mentioned they were all due to adding movies with reliable sources to actors filmography. So I would want to prevent any other in future. Thanks Daan0001 (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
188.8.131.52 is the Ip address of Ibnebatutaji traced to Pakistan
Total Siyapaa is a Indian Bollywood movie with a Pakistani lead Ali Zafar. even though the movie got overwhelmingly negative reviews the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Siyapaa) gave wrong information that the movie got positive reviews and got good opening. the page was protected and couldn't be edited. When I submitted edit request this adminstrator Ibnebatutaji started wrongly accusing me of being a sock of varkley. I am new in Wikipedia editing. I heard this name sock for first time. This vvarkley guy is old user. You understood that accusation was wrong and blocked this Ibnebatutaji. Now he showed his ip address as 184.108.40.206 which i traced to rawalpindi Pakistan. it's clear that Ibnebatutaji is a pakistani who is supporting the actor from his country and used his administrator rights to favour n Indian movie with Pakistani actor Ali Zafar. Wikipedia administrator can't be this biased. I hope Wikipedia takes action against Ibnebatutaji and blocks all his ip address. As I mentioned earlier I am new new in Wikipedia editing, so I don't know what to do exactly to publish the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZORDANLIGHTER (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
...and I'll introduce you to WP:OUTINGDP 13:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
DangerousPanda I would like to have more rights on Wikipedia, since most of the new editors/ users kept on dominating stating newbie* newbie*, how far it is true that a editor for more or less than 1 year cannot nominate a page under WP:CSD? WOWॐIndianTalk 12:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing that technically prevents you from appropriately nominating an article for CSD, as long as it meets the strict conditions for each category. New users certainly need to spend a lot of time learning a) those conditions, b) when CSD cannot be used, and in fact the entire set of deletion processes. Have you been unable to tag something for CSD, or has it simply been declined? Without specifics, I cannot make guesses DP 13:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You may find this helpful WP:CSD, just make sure they are well within the criteria for speedy deletion otherwise use PROD or AFD. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There's lots you need to learn...for example, please learn that you don't need to link my name when you're talking to me on my talkpage - I will already get notification - I don't need dual notifications DP 13:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)