User talk:SSigqW

Hello Wiki users

B4Blaze moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, B4Blaze, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Star Mississippi 19:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Star Mississippi, Ok lemme try to find more about it and will improve it. SSigqW (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of B4Blaze for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article B4Blaze 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/B4Blaze until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 03:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:SreenivasKrishnan per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SreenivasKrishnan. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't have any connection with that user give any one connection proof before you block my account. Im new to this wikipedia and never ever created any other accounts. My account is blocked without any reason. So unblock this ASAP. SSigqW (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 

Decline reason:

Umm, first, you're not in the situation where you can boss us around like that. Far from it, in fact. And aside from that, the technical evidence (which I cannot review but, from the way it's handled at the SPI, I can get an idea of how convinced the Checkuser was, and it seems they were at the highest level of confidence in the results and their interpretation) on which the block is based is never shared with those who are blocked, because if we did make it public or even share it with those accused, it could and would very easily be used to better evade blocks for sockpuppetry.

Besides, you were as attracted to that B4 Blaze article as all the other blocked socks ... that was very public and very obvious. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Nomination of Veeskhanam for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Veeskhanam 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/Veeskhanam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi Admin, My user SSigqW is Blocked as a sockpuppet of User:SreenivasKrishnan, but Sir, I don't have any connection with the user or any other users. Im new to wikipedia and I never ever created any other user. If wiki have any technical tools you can check it. They may find it sockpuppet due to an article B4blaze maybe. You can check my edits once I published B4 blaze and they told its not good for live and after that I never edited on that article. And I started doing other articles. I can promise if that B4blaze is the blocking factor in my user account I will not edit or create B4blaze article or anything related to that. Im here to contribute much more things. Please don't restrict with one article and one user which I don't have any connection at all. Thanks. SSigqW (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on a technical investigation of the checkuser data, I concur with the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BhaskerDeepak/Archive. Yamla (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Yamla (talk) I really dont know that user BhaskerDeepak. Im telling truth Im not connected to any users in wikipedia. Im a fresh contributor. Im 100% sure I don't have any connection with any other users. Pls review my block manually. Some admins pls help me. Help me some technical way to prove my user is no way connected to any other users.