User talk:Reddytrivikram

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Padmalakshmisx (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sockpuppetry crap is an extraordinary waste of everybody's time. The standard offer is always a possibility for you, but every time you violate our sockpuppetry policy, particularly with such a callous disregard for everybody's time, and seemingly an attitude that you have a right to edit here, which you do not, you only prolong your status of being unwelcome here and increase the number of users that would balk at any suggestion that you be unblocked, mostly out of spite. I've unblocked sock operators before, but only when I get the sense that they are regretful for the time suck they've become on the community, and only when I believe that they want to change and that they are capable of changing. You've never indicated that you are apologetic, and even after 5 years of editing you keep making inexcusable rookie mistakes.

Like here where you, for some reason, think that mentioning India in the lead is unnecessary (it's necessary) and linking to Telugu cinema instead of the language (you know, the primary topic). Or in the same edit where you summarize critical response without attributing that summary to a specific voice, which is required per MOS:FILM, or describing the film's finances as "decent" as if that subjective terminology has any academic value. (It's also unsourced...) So it shows some completely unearned balls to make this plea, apparently still unaware of how problematic your basic editing is. I genuinely don't know what you expect the community to do about you? Welcome you back? You don't even have the basics down. Very frustrating. You really should meditate about this, because only you have the power to change your experience around here. Any consideration to ever unblock you would require you to really come to grips with your editing behavior, and until then, anything you create will be deleted and anything you add will be revered. Your call, dude. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

hello cyphoidbomb - Regarding your accusations of Padmalakshmisx sock puppetry

regarding standard offer - what guarantee you can provide that after giving editing privileges after six months ? some other editor wont accuse me of sockpupptery ?

firstly, please provide your email address, so that I can communicate with you.

Secondly, please direct me wherever I make mistakes in citing an article, I will correct them. I dont have any issues with that, I want to help wikipedia in which ever way possible.

further, you Being a wikipedia administrator from the western part of the world, how do you know the history of Andhra Pradesh in India, and how do you know whether Vangaveeti is a biographical of vangaveeti mohana ranga ? all wikipedia administrators are not subject matter experts right ?

In addition, If mentioning Indian Telugu language film is essential, I will mention, I am an Indian, why would I have a problem in mentioning India film in an article ? If adding references is important I will definitely add upon your direction, provided you give me an opportunity to do so.

There is no meditation required for me, all I want from you is to provide me a username (a username of your choice), and monitor my edits (I am willing to provide identity proof including my home address, real name etc) using your administrator powers, if i do mistakes in citing references, categories, genres.

I am here to help wikipedia free of URL's by using reflinks template, how many users are sincere like me, putting their man hours, and internet expenses to edit wikipedia ? do you know how much data charges I am paying from my pocket to edit wikipedia ? you have no idea how much content I have contributed to wikipedia since 2011.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that this padmalakshmisx is a complete conspiracy of western wikipedia administrators whose aim is to restrict the development of Indian articles. I am far more better than so many other Indian editors, in my editing capabilities.

I have significant content to develop Indian films at cannes film festival ? Is there any editor available to replace my intellectual capability ? This is not the way wikipedia should function, if required ask editors to provide their identity proofs only to the arbitration committee, and further develop a mechanism so that administrators can view a person's IP address, and physical location. Reddytrivikram (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request mentions, but does not address, the sockpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb can speak for himself, but I suspect that he will not choose to tutor you, as you appear to request. Your apparent inability to use e-mail illustrates the competence aspect mentioned above. Your assertion that the sockpuppetry problem posed by padmalakshmisx is an admin conspiracy can only be dismissed either a demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the way in which Wikipedia works, or as a clumsy attempt to demonstrate you alleged lack of association with it. You suggestion that admins should be given near-checkuser ability is an obviously bad idea; the arbitration committee can, in certaibn circumstances, require proof of identity, but to do so routinely would be wholly against the ethos of the project. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:30, 1 January 2017 (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.

I don't even know where to begin in responding, since the above is mostly a jumble of random thoughts.

"I strongly believe that this padmalakshmisx is a complete conspiracy of western wikipedia administrators whose aim is to restrict the development of Indian articles." What does that even mean? Conspiracy of western Wikipedia editors? If there's a conspiracy, you're complicit in that conspiracy, since you have been abusing multiple accounts and violating our policies since at least 2011. No conspiracy forced you to be using six accounts simultaneously in January 2011. You act like you're not even a participant here. The entirety of this years-long time suck has been directly because you continue to violate policy and consider yourself above the rules. Nobody has time for that crap.

"There is no meditation required for me, all I want from you is to provide me a username (a username of your choice)" You're not in a position to make demands. The only plan available to you is the standard offer, which requires you to stop editing for 6 months, then make a compelling unblock request at your first account, which I assume is Padmalakshmisx. And no, there are no guarantees.

"I am far more better than so many other Indian editors, in my editing capabilities." Oh? And yet it was so easy to quickly find a single edit with four unique rookie mistakes. How about this edit? Misuse of |known_for=; incorrect presentation of occupation (should be {{hlist}} only the first occupation should be capitalised...); Bollywood is incorrectly capitalized; instead of three or four examples of his notable works in the lead you added seventeen frickin' examples, apparently oblivious to how problematic list cruft is and how such an obnoxious list only inspires other editors to keep adding to it. All of these things ultimately require fixing, which is why your edits continue to be problematic. So it takes work to chase you around the project, it takes work to fix your mistakes, it takes work to lecture you, and you seem to think you're an asset here?

Anyhow, I don't have time to go through each one of your points. The only plan open to you is the standard offer. Stop editing for six months, and you may open an unblock request as Padmalakshmisx. You will absolutely need to be able to articulate that you understand why you were blocked, you will need to articulate why you believe the behavior was wrong, and you'll need to articulate a coherent plan for avoiding these issues going forward. There are absolutely zero guarantees that you will be unblocked, because it's totally possible you've already irritated so many people that nobody will unblock you. Maybe that's something you should have been thinking about for the last 5 years. And just to reiterate, if you can't stay away from editing Wikipedia for six months, the clock is just going to keep resetting, so... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyphoidbomb Please look a the following queries:

Option 1 - I want guarantee from you that after giving editing privileges after six months ? some other editor should not accuse me of sockpuppetry ?

Option 2 - provide me a username (a username of your choice), and monitor my edits (I am willing to provide identity proof including my home address, real name etc) using your administrator powers, you kindly monitor my edits.

Option 3 - Kindly restore the article Indian cinema at Cannes Film Festival extensively created by me or you take time and create that article.Reddytrivikram (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]