User talk:VagaboundWind: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:37, 4 June 2015

Welcome!

Hello, VagaboundWind, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 14:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Aamayum Muyalum.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aamayum Muyalum.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) 23:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:London Bridge film poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:London Bridge film 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) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:London Bridge Film Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:London Bridge Film 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) 22:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:London Bridge Film Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:London Bridge Film 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) 22:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:London Bridge Film Poster.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:London Bridge Film Poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suresh Nair, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Zinda and Zanjeer. 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) 09:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Bird flu outbreak in Kerala, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Bird flu. 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) 09:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Life of Josutty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Memories (film)

Mariyam Mukku (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sujatha

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mili poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mili 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) 23:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaumudi (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) 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Loham location still.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Loham location still.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Loham location still.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Loham location still.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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. Eeekster (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Pranav Mohanlal Drawing.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Pranav Mohanlal Drawing.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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. Eeekster (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Loham location still.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Loham location still.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 20:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV

It seems that you are an ardent Mohanlal fan. But as you know Wikipedia needs to be unbiased. So keep it in mind. :)) --Alfasst (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Paisa Paisa movie poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Paisa Paisa 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) 22:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Loham location still.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Loham location still.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Vadakkan Selfie

Do you know the differenece between highly positive and generally positive?? --Alfasst (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say it....I don't think you know it well. VagaboundWind (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "The Times of India mentions it to be "worth a watch for the performance of its vibrant cast and .... ". Worth a watch means one time watchable. The film got ratings of 3 to 3.5 out of 5. So all that means generally positive reviews. Say highly positive, if it got 4 or 4.5 and if some critics say somethink like a must watch. You may have perceptions. But keep Wikipedia neutral. --Alfasst (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loham

You don't get a "Sorry, this page isn't available The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed." on the Loham Facebook link? Loham on Facebook I've tried it several times with the same result. Jim1138 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had rectified it now, the link wasn't given correctly. Thanks for the information. VagaboundWind (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi 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/Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi 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. Wgolf (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. 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}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaumudi (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) 10:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mohanlal

Hey firstly you provide valuable source..Forbes is not a film authority, and personal website is not acceptable as reference.Bashahikgt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First find out what Forbes Magazine is. Wikipedia is not a promotional media, you can promote mammootty in facebook. VagaboundWind (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok man you can also promote mohanlal on fb Bashahikgt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What i promoted? You are vandalising reliably sourced contents and i reverted it. And writing some wikiedia word learned from other editors in the edit summary does not justify your vandalism and disruptive editing. LOL, you even copy pasted a sentence itself, what i said to you. you are childish. VagaboundWind (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Amaury (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar the Rascal and Lailaa O Lailaa

Filmibeat is the entertainment portal of Oneindia.in and is a reliable source. I have also considered your contention regarding the IBTimes source used in Lailaa O Lailaa page and have included both articles as a source, one which mentions the movie a below average one and the other saying it is average. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how would you explain this edit? In Bangalore Days page you had argued that the cast should be ordered as it is in the credits but here you say it should be in order of importance. You had reported one user and got him banned for the very same reason. Please stop trying to promote your matinee idol in wiki. I myself am a fan of Mohanlal and was accused of biased editing in numerous pages such as Pazhassi Raja, Drishyam Twenty:20 etc. And here you accuse that I am a Mammootty fan. I am happy with both accusations as it ultimately proves me to be an unbiased editor. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore days has an "ensemble cast", so it can be arranged in anyway, but its good to arrange as in the order of film credits. In the case of Koothara, Mohanlal is a cameo, and i don't know how the credits of Koothara is shown. If he is in the first place, that is because he is a bigger actor than other cast. Know the facts. And Filmibeats is not at all a reliable source for calling a film "Blockbuster" and the other a "flop". You need strong and additional sources for support. VagaboundWind (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Mohanlal fan, but i don't think i promote him, i haven't included any contents without reliable sources or promoted him. But i protect his articles and try to make it good articles. And you are not at all an unbiased editor, u are a highly biased editor promoting mainly Dulquer Salmaan and Mammootty and the least Mohanlal. VagaboundWind (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any evidence why Filmibeat should be considered unreliable. As I have told you, it is the entertainment portal of Oneindia.in, one of the major news websites in India. It is as reliable as any other media source for box office details since we do not have any agency like Boxofficemojo that audits film revenue. And regarding the cast order in film's, it is not me or you who decides it but we have to follow existing policies which I have already detailed to you. Please try to find new reasons for your revert and don't repeat the same reason over and over. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have any box office auditing agency, then should you not keep it, unless it's from a highly reliable source like reputed news agencies. So you cannot label a film hit or flop relying in Filmibeat, and the article itself is written in biased way and not in a neutral point of view. It's more like editors own opinion. So you should find a better source next time. VagaboundWind (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help if you think the article is written in a biased tone. Every single review in the page simply blasts the film mercilessly; one of them even goes on calling the film a torture. Still you feel the reviews are mixed. Grow up brother. Filmibeat only repeats the same thing that is evident from reviews listed and adds that audience reviews are very poor and that the occupancy is very low that the film is heading to a disaster. That's all what is mentioned in the wiki article and this does not require a source from AFP for verification. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you admits that Filmibeat opinion is an "assumption" from the reviews. That what i said to you. There is no real box office status written there. And there are many movies with bad review gone big commercial successess, and iam not saying Lailaa O Lailaa is a success or become one. VagaboundWind (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to read, I only said this. That the Filmibeat article does not contradict with what is said in the reception section of the article. And yes, the article says a lot about the film's box office performance. If you understand Malayalam, these sentences do imply that: "ലാലും ജോഷിയും വീണ്ടും ഒന്നിച്ച ലൈല ഓ ലൈല വന്‍ പരാജയത്തിലേക്കു കൂപ്പുകുത്തുകയാണ്." (meaning, the film is heading to a big failure) "തുടര്‍ച്ചയായ നാലാം ചിത്രമാണു ജോഷിയുടെതായി തിയറ്ററില്‍ തകരുന്നത്." (meaning, it is the fourth successive film of Joshiy that bombed in theatres) Malayala Sahityam (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She Taxi (film)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of She Taxi (film), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.momdb.com/movie/1746/She+Taxi.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Not sock puppet VagaboundWind (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence appears to suggest otherwise. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:59, 3 June 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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

May be a misunderstanding, i don't know what's happening. Why are you accusing me.? VagaboundWind (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=May be a misunderstanding, i don't know what's happening. Why are you accusing me.? [[User:VagaboundWind|VagaboundWind]] ([[User talk:VagaboundWind#top|talk]]) 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=May be a misunderstanding, i don't know what's happening. Why are you accusing me.? [[User:VagaboundWind|VagaboundWind]] ([[User talk:VagaboundWind#top|talk]]) 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=May be a misunderstanding, i don't know what's happening. Why are you accusing me.? [[User:VagaboundWind|VagaboundWind]] ([[User talk:VagaboundWind#top|talk]]) 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 | image = [[File:Sock block.svg|55px]]
 | text  = '''''This account has been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] indefinitely''''' as a [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]]&#32;that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|allowed]], but using them for [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|''illegitimate'']] reasons '''is not''', and that all edits made while evading a block or ban [[WP:CSD#G5|may be reverted or deleted]].  If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include "tlx|". -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;}} below. However, you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User:Ponyo|<font color="Navy">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ponyo|<font color="Navy">''bons mots''</font>]]</sup>  19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)<!-- Template:uw-sockblock -->}}
+==Unblock==
 {{unblock reviewed|1=Not sock puppet [[User:VagaboundWind|VagaboundWind]] ([[User talk:VagaboundWind#top|talk]]) 14:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)|decline=The evidence appears to suggest otherwise. --<font color="Red">[[User:Anthony Bradbury|'''Anthony Bradbury''']]</font><sup><font color="Black">[[User talk:Anthony.bradbury|"talk"]]</font></sup> 20:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)}}
+{{unblock|May be a misunderstanding, i don't know what's happening. Why are you accusing me.? [[User:VagaboundWind|VagaboundWind]] ([[User talk:VagaboundWind#top|talk]]) 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)}}