User talk:Sohompramanick

Welcome Sohompramanick!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,276,860 users!

Hello, Sohompramanick. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm AnomieBOT, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Manual of style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't vandalize

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Sincerely, AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dadagiri Unlimited has been reverted.
Your edit here to Dadagiri Unlimited was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/dadagiriunlimited) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dev (actor). It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dev (actor). It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Dev (actor), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of such policies as WP:RS--and please turn off your caps lock. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SRK EDIT[edit]

Not me, but Wikipedia wants proof in the form of inline citations from reliable third-party sources. You can see how its done in this and other articles, and there are plenty of learning links. Let me know if you need help finding them. BollyJeff || talk 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for Continuation of the same editing that led to the previous block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't do anything wrong! I am just making the page with more accurate information! Sohompramanick (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are absolutely failing the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. You are also massively misunderstanding what is and what is NOT a reliable source. Just because you hold the WP:TRUTH does not mean that consensus will permit it in the article. Edit-warring, claiming "accuracy" are not a part of this process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 14 December 2011 (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.

Your[edit]

link is dead dude. And if you can't stop writing in caps or forget to sign, please don't post in my talk page. I mean it. I really don't care for your sources because after explaining the 1000th time you don't pay any attention and have no clue. I'm not interested. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you come and add the same unsourced and fancruft content in Dev (actor)? You were blocked for the same reason and you did the same thing. I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand what exactly do you want? To be permanently blocked? If so you are really walking on thin line. You need to stop adding content unsupported by sources. And who provided you permission? Answer me all these questions. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you to WP:ANI. You have not only vandalized the page, but uploaded a false picture also. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you need to stop adding unsourced content and fan sites like www.devsuperstar.com. You uploaded an image that was not free and neither was it available on the link provided. Wikipedia has strict rules regarding such things. I did ask you countless times NOT to add anything. And please stop writing in capital letters and sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Dev (actor). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. That means adding the reliable reference in your edit, too. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 12:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Dev (actor). Thank you. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We understand you want to make the Dev article as complete and accurate as possible, there's nothing wrong with that. However, there are limitations on what Wikipedia allows for various reasons. The choices you have are to learn and follow the guidelines, or you'll likely be blocked indefinitely, at which point you won't be able to edit the article at all. This is not a threat -- I'm not an admin and can't block you -- but an observation from someone who has been around here a long time. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 13:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that Wikipedia is wrong, what you did was right, or that other editors were unfair or attacking you will not get you unblocked. At this point, your only good options are stating that you understand, agree with, and will follow Wikipedia policies in the future. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 13:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:33, 21 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I had all reliable sources this time! I even had the information given by Dev (actor)! He is the one whom I am editing about! His official page also shows the same information! So please remove the block & allow me to edit it! I can give you all the reliable sources if you want! som.rocks 18:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have to think that if you truly did have reliable, independent sources, you would have cited them at some point during the ten-day edit war I see in the history of Dev (actor). Your request seems to indicate that you still don't understand what an independent source is, which means that, if unblocked you would go back to breaking the same rule again, and have to be immediately re-blocked and your edits cleaned up again. That seems like a lot of unnecessary work for others. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:26, 21 December 2011 (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'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).

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

Request reason:

I had put reliable source in reference! som.rocks 09:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't see any improvement in understanding of editing and sourcing policies, despite warnings and blocks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2011 (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.

No you did not, and your edit history proves it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 10:10, 22 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Then tell me what are the reliable sources & in what way my sources are not reliable! I would be careful next time then! som.rocks 11:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2011 (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.

When you made edits to Dev (actor) yesterday, prior to your block, you did not provide any sources at all, never mind reliable ones. I suspect you perhaps don't understand what sources are? Have a read of WP:Citing sources to learn what it's all about, and then WP:Identifying reliable sources to help you understand what constitutes a reliable source -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking back on this, I'm thinking this probably is just a misunderstanding of what we mean by "sourcing". Have you just looked at sources and then used them to write your Wikipedia material? If so, that's a good start, but it's not sufficient. You need to actually cite the sources in the article too, so that people reading it can tell where the information came from and can check the sources themselves - the link I gave you above explains how to do that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I will mention the sources next time! Please give me one last chance & permission to edit Dev (actor) by adding reliable sources in the reference! Please! som.rocks 13:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no indication whatsoever in your latest unblock request that you have read WP:RS. If you truly want to be unblocked, you should thoroughly read it over, and when you have finished give a few examples of citations you would include. Continued refusal to get the message will probably result in your talkpage being locked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:05, 23 December 2011 (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've already reviewed one request, but I want to give you some advice: no one is going to unblock you until you demonstrate that you understand what the term reliable sources means. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]