User talk:Sampathpeechu

Welcome!

Hello, Sampathpeechu, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Criticisms of Sonia Gandhi, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 03:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Criticisms of Sonia Gandhi[edit]

Please do not make articles about a living person that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative unreferenced biographies of living people are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 03:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the latest revision of the page for links and references that make the content "Verifiable". If you find specific content objectionable, please let me know and I will edit it. But first you have to remove the speedy deletion status in order for me to edit the page. Sampathpeechu (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reword and edit the content in order to remove any hint of "Attacks" on the subject. But you need to first allow the creation of the page in order for me to even edit it. Sampathpeechu (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of the policy on biographies of living persons.. 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:04, 25 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I humbly request the administrators to unblock me from editing articles. I believe I have learned from my mistake the hard way and I want to assure that I will not repeat it. I would love to be able to continue to contribute whatever little I can to help Wikipedia's mission.

Decline reason:

I'm nowhere near convinced. Please explain what was wrong with your edits and how are you going to avoid the same mistakes in the future. Max Semenik (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Max, could you please review my 2nd request in which I have tried to address your concerns stated above ? Sampathpeechu (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand your concerns. My edits were in violation of policies of the Biographies of Living Persons, specifically some of my edits were "attacks" on the subject. Since I repeated the violations I was put on "indefinite block" status. As to how to avoid such mistakes in future, I want to assure you that Wikipedia will not be the place for my critical commentary or any other content of such nature, and when I'm editing articles on Wikipedia I will put on my editor's hat, strictly adhere to all relevant policies and guidelines, and act constructively like I have done in the past without any issues. Sampathpeechu (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your editing history is nowhere near sufficient to show a generally-acceptable editing pattern (the number of edits to articles/talkpages is almost as many as your deleted edits). I see no evidence to conclude that a block would be in order at this time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:21, 26 January 2012 (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.

You say "and when I'm editing articles on Wikipedia I will put on my editor's hat, strictly adhere to all relevant policies and guidelines, and act constructively like I have done in the past without any issues." When was this, and what was your account name? —SpacemanSpiff 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sampathpeechu Sampathpeechu (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think you guys are overdoing this a bit now. First Max Semenik asks for a "more convincing request". Then, SpacemanSpiff asks for a history of my contributions. Now, PhantomSteve denies my request because of insufficient history. Why does the target keep moving ? Why can't Max Semenik just review my 2nd request because it was he who asked for it ?

No, there's no moving target. You claimed that you have a history of "constructive edits". That was according to you a convincing request. Two edits isn't a history of constructive edits, and therefore not a convincing argument. —SpacemanSpiff 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. The history came into question only AFTER my 2nd request. And the history wasn't even the core of my 2nd request, just a secondary supporting part, something to show to you guys that I have demonstrated acceptable behavior as an editor in the past. The main question from Max Semenik was "Please explain what was wrong with your edits and how are you going to avoid the same mistakes in the future". And I answered exactly that and a bit more. Denying my request on the basis of "a bit more" doesn't make sense. I would still appreciate a reply from Max Semenik, it's ok with me if he denies my 2nd request based on its merits or demerits but that would be an acceptable closure to me.

Request to rename my user name[edit]

Hi, Please rename my user name to some generic user name like "suspectusual321" or "indigo321" or something like that. thanks ! Sampathpeechu (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]