User talk:Sreenathr10

Speedy deletion nomination of Tv Govindan Pilicode[edit]

Hello Sreenathr10,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tv Govindan Pilicode for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. A^RendedWinter 10:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sreenath Raghunath (September 26)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I'm tempted to CSD - reads like a resume

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sreenath Raghunath and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sreenath Raghunath, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself, at Draft:Sreenath Raghunath. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 18:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Sreenathr10. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Sreenath Raghunath, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create Sreenath Raghunath‎ into mainspace yourself or you will be reported for violating WP:COIEDIT. I've moved it back 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sreenath Raghunath[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sreenath Raghunath, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

This is your only warning; if you create an inappropriate page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sreenath Raghunath[edit]

The article Sreenath Raghunath has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Hello, Sreenathr10, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Sreenathaywenz (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for using multiple accounts without disclosure and continuous self-promotion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to give an indefinite block to your old account, User:Sreenathaywenz. If you continue to edit disruptively in a weeks time, or are found to be socking, this account will also receive a longer (and perhaps indefinite) block. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sreenath Raghunath (October 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JDoorjam was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Subject is not notable.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sreenath Raghunath and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sreenath Raghunath, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sreenathr10! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sreenathr10. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2018 (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).

Sreenathr10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I dind't read wikipedia terms and conditions and i will not repeat this again Sreenathr10 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You clearly knew about this policy, having been previously blocked for it. Nor have you addressed your inappropriate self-promotion. Yamla (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2018 (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).

Sreenathr10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please ,I will not repeat this again in future

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You were blocked for WP:SOCK and self promotion and then created yet another sock and continued to self promote at Draft:Sreenath Raghunath. The other accounts, from what I can gather, are Sreenathaywenz and Sreenathraghunath70. Are there any others? Regrettably, apologizing and promising to never do it again after you have already done it again is not convincing. Your statement about not reading the terms and conditions, and therefore not knowing you could be blocked indefinitely for continuing to sock, does not ring true. You were specifically warned that this account would be blocked indefinitely if you socked again. At the very least, you must specifically affirm that you will 1) not create further sockpuppets, 2) affirm that you willnot attempt to edit Draft:Sreenath Raghunath or write about Sreenath Raghunath ever again, 3) you must convince us that you will make constructive edits not involving Sreenath Raghunath. Generally, we say "in general terms", but it is best to not be too general. To be frank, there is no certainty that you will be unblocked after meeting those conditions, but they are the minimal requirements.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2018 (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).

Sreenathr10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please Consider my unblock request.i am sure i will not repeat this again Sreenathr10 (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:51, 25 October 2018 (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).

Sreenathr10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am blocked because i have repeatedly published my own wiki.i will not surely repeat this again.I know i have done lots of time . please give me a chance ,I will not repeat this will follow all terms and conditions

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for "publishing your own wiki", you are blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry. That is clearly explained in the blocking message above. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2018 (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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreenathr10 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

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).

Sreenathr10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have understand all the terms and conditions , i am blocked because of publishing my wikipedia for lots of times,I agreed that i will surely obey the terms and conditions of wikipedia and will not do anything against the wikipedia t&c so please accept my request and unblock my account

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request is needed at a time. Closing this one, and leaving the request below open. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:43, 12 January 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.

(Non-Administrator-Comment): WP:NOTGETTINGIT. You were blocked for being the Master of some Sockpuppets, not for "publishing my wikipedia for lots of times". If you want to get unblocked, you need to adress the sock puppetry in your unblock reason. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

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).

Sreenathr10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have requested for unblock in previous section,I have blocked for creating so many accounts and articles , I have created some accounts which is sreenathr70,govindan1 and this are my accounts used to create article,I will not use this accounts anymore and will obay all the terms and condition of wikipedia,so i request you to please unblock me Sreenathr10 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:23, 6 February 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.