User talk:Hello5678
October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Payal Rohatgi, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Managerarc[Talk] 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Re:
That is certainly not a reliable reference. Also you are deliberately trying to add negativity to the article. Per WP:BLP all articles must be written in a neutral point of view. Please understand the WP policies. — Managerarc[Talk] 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Thank you. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Payal Rohatgi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Managerarc[Talk] 12:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Fisherqueen is blocked for life indefinitely
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Payal Rohatgi. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Managerarc[Talk] 13:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello5678 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User Akerans has been indulging in writing false information on an article, removing reliable sources and trying to portray a completely false image of a B-grade actress.Her complete list of films (which includes soft porn) is always deleted by Akerans and very soon, a press article in the newspaper shall carry how certain users like Akerans try to change the truth.The administrator 2by0 who blocked shall be named too, since the editwar was carried by Akerans,not me. There are many different computers, and IP addresses to edit the data, but a press article indicating how a B-grade actress uses people to push her sleazy films under the carpet is more effective
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
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.
- (edit-conflict decline) You have already discovered for yourself that edit-warring is an entirely useless way of dealing with disagreements on articles- others can revert as often as you can. That's why edit-warring is always against the rules, even when you're sure that you are right. It's just an ineffective way of dealing with disputes. You should spend your block time reading WP:DISPUTE, so that you have some better ideas for dealing with disputes. I'm also troubled by this edit, in which you describe the actor in question as 'sleazy,' call another editor 'stupid,' and threaten to break Wikipedia's rules by edit-warring and sockpuppetry.
- You might also find it helpful to know that IMDB does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, since it, like Wikipedia, is user-generated. If this information is accurate, it can be included, but you will need to find a better source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making my press article ever more effective, Fisherqueen. Once, it is published with your name ofcourse, You will then be able to spend your 'block time in real life' trying to find out where you went wrong. The press article intends to show how Wikipedia is twisted and turned by so called admins and editors to show a hazy, false, biased, untrue image of sleazy ( yes, you heard that right, becuase people who do B-grade soft porn films are called sleazy )actresses for people seeking 'true' information, and yes, you do edit, not to show a true informed picture of a person, but a biased non-neutral image, probably paid by actress in question herself. So, then you are no more than a puppet.
FISHERQUEEN, I DO NOT FIND ANYTHING WHAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED AS HELPFUL, BUT YOU WILL CERTAINLY BE HELPED IN KNOWING THAT THIS KIND OF PUPPETRY AND POLITICS, TRYING TO GAIN FALSE GOOD PUBLICITY IN VIRTUAL LIFE ACTUALLY LEADS TO BAD PUBLICITY IN REAL LIFE.
THE MAIN AIM WAS NEVER TO KEEP EDITING THAT PAGE, SINCE THAT IS EASILY POSSIBLE BY THE PLETHORA OF COMPUTERS IN A MEDIA OFFICE AS MINE. THE MAIN AIM WAS TO FIND HOW AND WHICH PEOPLE TRY TO PUSH THE TRUTH UNDER THE CARPET. SO, THANKS TO YOUR ATTEMPTS TO SHIELD THE SLEAZY ACTRESS IN QUESTION, THE ARTICLE WILL NOW QUITE CLEARLY SHOW THAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOTHING BUT A SCRIBBLEBOOK, WHERE ANYONE CAN WRITE ANYTHING AND THINK THE WORLD DOES NOT KNOW THE TRUTH.
SORRY, BUT THAT IS SO NOT THE CASE. TRUTH HAS ALWAYS WON AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.
DISCLAIMER - THE NAMES MENTIONED IN THE USERTALK ( AKERANS, MANAGERARC, FISHERQUEEN, KURU) ( ALONG WITH THE IP, WHICH WE HAVE ENCOVERED AS PART OF OUR INVESTIGATION ) WILL BE MENTIONED IN THE PRESS ARTICLE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY PERSONAL BIAS. IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW HOW WIKIPEDIA IS TWISTED AND TURNED IN ANY WAY, BY THE SO CALLED 'EDITORS AND ADMINS' WHO WANT TO PROPOGATE LIES AND SPREAD FALSE AND BIASED INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE LISTED ON WIKIPEDIA.
- That's fine. I made my suggestions based on Wikipedia's rules, assuming that your goal was to add accurate information in a neutral way to the encyclopedia- if that's your goal, following my advice is the best way to achieve your goal. If your goal is to publicly humiliate an actress with information that has not been verified by reliable sources, then you won't be able to do that at Wikipedia. If your goal is to make all-caps insults, or to publish "articles" from your "media office" about how bad Wikipedia is, then you don't really need Wikipedia access at all for that. The choice you make will depend entirely on what your goal is, but only the goal of adding accurate information in a neutral way is a goal that will help you remain unblocked after this block expires. Continuing to make inappropriate edits in the future will result in additional, longer blocks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've restored a paragraph that you removed, simply because in removing it, you also removed my signature, making it unclear who was talking with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- By the way- just because it wouldn't be fair for me to block you later without making sure you understand- it is not okay to try to get your way in an editing dispute by threatening people with media exposure. The only way to get your way in an editing dispute is to actually be right, which you can best demonstrate by sharing your sources and discussing Wikipedia's rules. Continuing to threaten people with 'media articles' will result in another block for you- even though it's clear you aren't a journalist, and have no means of carrying out your threat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've restored a paragraph that you removed, simply because in removing it, you also removed my signature, making it unclear who was talking with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Test subject
Test matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.15.211 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)