User talk:Radicalux

July 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Begoon. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bigil, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Begoon 10:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cast addition in Bigil[edit]

Hi Begoon, I wish to add women footballers (Vinaya Seshan and 1 more) to the cast. There is no citation or reference presently as the press sources are focused on the "actors". However, the wiki pages of these footballers are under build up. Hence, am making the addition "in Good Faith" as is the accepted Wiki practice. Hence, request you to add back the name of Vinaya Seshan to the list. She is the goal keeper of the Karnataka State Football team and captain of the U-19 women's football team. https://www.gcsstars.com/2017/07/vinaya-seshan-to-lead-karnataka-in.html and also in also in Times of India 25-Jul-17. The reference to her starring in Bigil is not in any paper, but is there in Good Faith.Radicalux (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what "good faith" means. I don't doubt that you believe what you are adding is true, but Wikipedia requires WP:Verifiability. I'm afraid that if you can't find a reference in a reliable source yet then you can't add the content. It's not a question of trusting you or believing you, or having "good faith", it's simply that readers of the encyclopedia need to be able to verify content, and if it isn't verifiable then you can't add it until it is. Sorry. -- Begoon 11:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vinaya Seshan[edit]

The article Vinaya Seshan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the current sources are unreliable and a Google News search turns up only 4 hits.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vinaya Seshan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vinaya Seshan 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/Vinaya Seshan 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. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

Please read WP:MINOR and do not tag as "minor" an edit like this one where you are adding content to an article. Thanks. PamD 11:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help I have been blocked[edit]

I have been blocked by Bbb23 for possible sockspuppetry investigation along with John advic and the investigation shows no or minimal connection. I request help in unblocking my Account. Additionally, an article posted by me was also put into speedy deletion mode by Bbb23 because of this. Urgent help needed. The investigation seems to have been done by 1997kB and does not seem to show any linkage or connection between Radicalux and John advic. A public investiagtion using Wiki tools also so no connection.

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).

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

Request reason:

No connection to John advic

Decline reason:

That is not the case. I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Generally, behavioral issues are also a factor in a SPI report. I have reviewed the WP:SPI report as well as your edits. I see no reason to doubt the results. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

No connection with User: John advic

Decline reason:

This is simply not the case. The connection was established. Yamla (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2019 (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.

My user name is Radicalux and I don't see or have any connection with any other user. I also am not aware if my IP address is in the same range as any one else, as I occasionally access Wikipedia from my office Account (behind a Proxy Server and may have the same range of IP address as many others! The second reason being talked about is that I posted an article that was also edited by John advic one month back. This is no reason to block an user and also put the Article for Speedy Deletion when the criteria for publication was met and the queries around the article were being addressed. Need help here. Radicalux (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Radicalux[reply]