User talk:Rio Nor

Yippee (noodles) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Yippee (noodles), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello sir/mam, nice to meet you.

As per your concern, I had "again" reviewed all my citations and found that all sources are reliable enough for publishing.

I had searched a lot to find all the "reliable" sources.

Here, is the list of all sources that I had used:

1. Economic times 2. ITC Limited 3. Live mint 3. The hindu 4. Financial express 5. Afaqs 6. Indian tv dot com

Tell me which of them is unreliable or less reliable so that I can omit it out, because I found all of them as reliable. Rio Nor (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I had again read general notability guideline and found everything is good for publishing it.

Please, can you review it again? Rio Nor (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I spent a week to find out all sources and reviewed each of them 10 times as per your concern. What can I do more than this?

I request you to please review it yourself. Rio Nor (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Yippee (noodles) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yippee (noodles) 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 Articles for deletion/Yippee (noodles) 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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Bobe8q8661. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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:. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That's the evidence that Prax presented for SPI. It gives the rationale for taking a deeper look. That behavioral evidence is very clear on it's own that you're Bobe8q8661, though. On top of that, the technical information, private information only available to checkusers, matches Bobe8q8661 and past sockpuppets. Please note, that if you're caught by a checkuser again, you'll be community banned under third strike rules. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for info but I strongly believe in: "Justice should be served."

And I didn't do anything wrong so why would I fear of something? Rio Nor (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

For Tamzin,

I don't know who you are and why you blocked someone.

But, I am not the one whom you are understanding.

On basis of your comment, you don't have right to review my blockage as you will see it from one side only.

Leave it for another admin's review and see what happen. Rio Nor (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)