User talk:ImSonyR9/Archive1

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Rollback granted
Hi ImSonyR9. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AImSonyR9 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Autopatrolled granted
Hi ImSonyR9, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AImSonyR9 added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Hello ImSonyR9. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:ImSonyR9. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 13:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Actually the article I have created after watching a film of that actress, Khushi Shah. So, While creating the article, I have collected data from various news sources and other websites, and for the development of the article some more informations (e.g. DoB, full list of Filmography) were collected from a close source of the actress. But I Want to clearly mention that I did not receive any kind of payment from her nor I demanded any financial benefit from her, even whoever gives me any proposal to create any article in terms of monetary benefit, I clearly forbid them, because I am well aware of Wikipedia's T&Cs, that discourage its users to create any kind of paid article. So, I assure you again that neither I receive nor I am supposed to receive any payment for her article. Hence I request you to remove the Undisclosed paid tag and reviewing the draft move it to mainspace article because I guess you have gone through the article's sources and removed those unnecessary references and removing all those, the content of the draft is still seem to be good standard which deserves a mainspace article. Thank You. Sony R


 * Some off-wiki evidence tells a different story and I have shared the same with an admin. Also, can you please disclose your relation with Raka (choreographer) and Jeet Raidutt? do you know them personally or professionally? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 13:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by off-wiki evidence? By the way, I am again assuring you, Till Date I have not made any paid article neither I want to do. I don't know for which purpose You've moved Raka (choreographer) and Jeet Raidutt's article to draft. Firstly, The page Jeet Raidutt was not even created by me. Someone else created it with so much grammatical errors, so I just fixed those. Then one of my friend told me to add a photo of Raidutt to his article, so I just uploaded that, nothing else. Secondly, Whole details of filmography of Raka (choreographer) was collected from IMDb, though I did not used that as reference. But few details like his journey in Bollywood was shared to me by the subject of the article self through social media. But I did not ask any kind of payment for that. Just to develop the article, I collected those information from him personally. As per Wiki terms it was my Original research, but not in terms of any payment. And for your information, again I made it clear that I did not have any personal or professional relation with any of the above-mentioned person. I just made a few original research to develop those article, but by NO means of any kind of payment. I hope you realise it. If not, then I have nothing to do with it. You do whatever you wish to do. Thanks.
 * The evidence includes an advertisement on a freelancing website that disappeared after Khushi Shah was created by you. You uploaded File:Jeet Raidutt in 2013.jpg, File:Raka choregrapher.jpg and File:Raka during Subh Mangal Saavdhan.jpg as your own work with comments such as Image is captured and edited by me so if you don't have any personal or professional relationship with them then how did you manage to take these promotional images? This image of Jeet Raidutt was taken by you back in 2013, but you choose to upload it years after one of your friends asked you to do so? how you are going to explain that? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 18:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I told you earlier, most of the details about their career was my original reasearch. During that time Raka sent me those two photo to upload on Wiki for his article. When I told if I upload it using "it's my own work" then it will be hassle free to upload, but If I upload it by using "The photo was given to me by its owner" then he has to sent a number of mails to Wikimedia for confirming and it's a bit hectic process, so just to get his photo uploaded, he left the copyright of the photo and allowed me to use that as my own work. Same happened in case of Jeet Raidutt. My friend sent me his photo and told me whatever easiest way there is, upload his photo in his article. Then I have suggested him same thing. They provided me all details about photo, me, then doing necessary editing, uploaded those. Because I just wanted to avoid that hazardous uploading process & to save my time. And if they have left copyright of the photo, then what's the problem? Again I repeat, I made original research to develop their article. I did not take any kind of payment for those editing. Neither I have any personal & professional relationship. But, yes I agree that this photo seems to be promotional & unnecessary but it was an unintetional upload, as I didn't have right to delete that photo, I couldn't. If you have rights you can delete this one.
 * ImSonyR9, please don't remove the COI tag from Draft:Raka (choreographer)‎ since you have a conflict of interest as per your comment above plus you have not yet disclosed your paid editing status on Khushi Shah so, I'm requesting you to seize your edits till you fully comply with WP:PAID. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 15:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Firstly, the article of Khushi Shah has already been deleted. One of my friend requested me to create her article, providing some news sources links. I don't know whether he got money for that or not. But I am simply denying to have been financially benefited for her article. Secondly, As I said, I'm a big fan of Himesh Reshammiya, having created the article of the movie Happy Hardy and Heer, I found it important to create an article about the director of the film, Raka (Choreographer). So, after having a research on google, I've created his article. But yes I made some original research to develop the article. Otherwise, I did not take any money from him. Agar aapko yakeen nehi hai, toh aap khud jaake Raka se pooch lena, kya unhone mujhe unke article banane ke liye ek bhi paisa diya hai kya? Fr your kind information, editing Wikipedia is my hobby, not my profession. I'll deny it 100 times that till date I have taken any payments to create any article. If you still don't believe in me, I don't care. Block me or ban me, whatever you wish, you do. Mujhe koi farq nehi padhta. Rather Main apni waqt barbaad karke jo kar raha hoon, atleast mera yeh time waste nehi hoga. Thank You so much.

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have an undisclosed financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:
 * Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
 * State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
 * Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future. – bradv  🍁  17:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

 * Your use of a different account to evade your block and then remove BLP sources from the draft you have paid editing concerns over is disruptive. You are now also blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I don't know about which account you are talking about. I do not own any other Wikipedia account.
 * You need to sign your posts. The ping template does not work if you don't sign your post. The account which was reported and blocked at SPI as a suspected sockpuppet of yours is User:Manas babu.1996. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How can you be sure that that account belongs to me? Do you have any proof for that? You're only assuming that. I have only one id and that too is logged in from both my Laptop and mobile phone. I completely deny to have any other account. So, the account which you're referring as my account, doesn't belong to me. Sony R.
 * ping still didn't work. You need to use ~ for it to work. The account is blocked because your and that accounts edits are similar: you edit similar topics in similar ways which suggested to me that this account was controlled by you. Furthermore the short time frame between your block and the account creation of Manas babu.1996 is suspicious bearing in mind the similarities. In this situation the similarities were strong enough for me to conclude that it was likely that sockpuppetry / block evasion had gone on. The evidence can be found by comparing your and that accounts contribution pages, and the evidence presented in Sockpuppet investigations/ImSonyR9/Archive. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

For the reviewing admin, note that using my checkuser access, I see no evidence of block evasion in the recent past. This should count in favour of the unblock request. Speaking as a non-checkuser, what should count against the unblock request is the repeated attempts to falsely deny the sockpuppetry, here and elsewhere. --Yamla (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)