Gantlet

Welcome!

Hello, Gantlet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --TennisAuthority 09:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger Federer Article?

Greatness! I think you are doing a great job on wikipedia so far, but I think you can cool off some on this subject because I put in the word Arguably to preface the greatest ever, which makes it neutral! TennisAuthority 09:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Start Box Discussion!

I was just wanting to give you and opportunity to weight into the conversation about the validity of these start boxes, which here's the link in order to do so Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Start_Boxes_Templates_for_Tennis_Player.3F TennisAuthority 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kochi FAR

I have nominated Kochi, India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Aaroncrick (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

Hi Gantlet, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011. You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form. But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach. As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions. We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Gantlet! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Two different channels

You wrote (cur | prev) 20:24, 23 January 2015‎ Gantlet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,543 bytes) (-136)‎ . . (Unncecessary. Already gave the review from NDTV) (undo | thank)

But NDTV has two channels one English other Hindi . Hindi is known as NDTV India , English is called NDTV 24/7--Frost The World (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia English site(en.wikipedia.org). Please refrain from using citations from other languages in future. This is strictly against the community guidelines. Gantlet (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User Ratings

Please read the MOS film section on audience response - WP:Manual of Style/Film#Audience response. Especially the last sentence. Ravensfire (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thierry Henry

I've reverted your changes because statements such as 'greatest ever' don't need to be cited unless it is covered properly in the body of the article. In this case it isn't. Your choice of sources is questionable; goal.com is not a reliable source, certainly not for an article at FA standard. Should you wish to make radical changes to the article, best state them on the talk page. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Kochi images

Hi. I haven't checked and looked through you image additions to Kochi but have a request. WP:IMGLOC says we shouldn't sandwich text between two images. Generally, image subjects should be discussed within the article too. Please consider reading MOS:IMAGE if you haven't already. Maybe after that, you might want to check out if the Kochi page follows it? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Do not update only two players, you made the table incorrect. Qed237 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Timestamp

Hi.

When you update statistics please remember that you should also update the timestamps as of when the stats are correct. This is done by manually updating the date above or below the statistics table. By doing this we show when the stats were last updated and it prevents other editors from accidentally updating the stats again.

Please keep this in mind. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Dear User:Salvidrim!, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that I have a sock puppet. I created a duplicate account way back in 2010, when I didn't even know what a sock puppet was & creating multiple accounts is wrong. I was temporarily blocked for about 30 days & my duplicate account was deleted. Since then I haven't created any duplicate account & I've been editing articles usefully & responsibly since then. This is such a poor decision from admins. When I checked the log the sock puppet you found which was mine was User:Rajeshbieee & the created articles by him are mostly Tamil film articles. I'm from a place called Kerala & my language is Malayalam & I don't even know Tamil, except understanding a few words. I would relly like you guyz to remove the block so that I could continue with my small contributions.Gantlet (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I haven't got any response for my unblock request so doing it again. Hope I'm doin'g it right. I was blocked saying that I'm a sock puppet. I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that I have a sock puppet. I created a duplicate account way back in 2010, when I didn't even know what a sock puppet was & creating multiple accounts is wrong. I was temporarily blocked for about 30 days & my duplicate account was deleted. Since then I haven't created any duplicate account & I've been editing articles usefully & responsibly since then. This is such a poor decision from admins. When I checked the log the sock puppet you found which was mine was User:Rajeshbieee & the created articles by him are mostly Tamil film articles. I'm from a place called Kerala & my language is Malayalam & I don't even know Tamil, except understanding a few words. I would relly like you guyz to remove the block so that I could continue with my small contributions. Gantlet (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There was technical evidence linking this account to User:Adj48n, and the technical evidence connecting you and Rajeshbieee was evaluated as "a mix between possible and likely". I think you'll have some more explaining to do. Huon (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

May I know what technical reasons do you have? You just say there are technical reasons, but doesn't say what they are. I've checked the log of the user Rajeshbee which you claim is my sockpuppet & I've found not a single page common to me & that user which we've edited. I don't know whether that user has made an unblock request, but I really would like to clear this because this shows the incompetency of Wikipedia & it's admins in effectively handling users and makes responsible editors like myself lose faith in it Gantlet (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are misusing the unblock request. This isn't a means for you to contact Huon. Instead, you may use the {{ping|Huon}}, but I strongly advise you do so only once. The actual investigation is linked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gantlet/Archive. Yamla (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2016 (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.

The technical evidence is only known to those who have the CheckUser user right, some of Wikipedia's most trusted editors. It will not be published. On the one hand there are privacy issues, on the other it would be a bad idea to tell you how to more easily evade our scrutiny. Besides, you're saying here that "I created a duplicate account way back in 2010, when I didn't even know what a sock puppet was & creating multiple accounts is wrong. I was temporarily blocked for about 30 days & my duplicate account was deleted." - I assume that refers to User:Rajeshbiee, the account blocked in 2010. Now here User:Rajeshbieee says Rajeshbiee was them while at the same time disclaiming any connection to you. Since your user page was rather full of obvious falsehoods, I currently see no reason to consider yourself a credible source about your relation, or lack thereof, to Rajeshbieee. Huon (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No. My sock puppet created in 2010 was User:Dewatchdog not Rajeshbee. If you check me records properly you will know that. You don't need to tell about how to evade your scrutiny, rather from this block itself it's clear to me that it's not at all foolproof. As I told you earlier the sock puppet User:Dewatchdog was created way back in 2010 when I was new to Wikipedia. I created it as I was involved in an edit war with another user. Don't remember the name. It was the time when I didn't even knew what a sock puppet was or what an edit war was. I was blocked temporarily at that time & that was when I learned about the rules & regulations & I've been contributing responsibly ever since however small the contributions were. It's almost clear that you have no intention in removing my block since you seem to be adamant in your so called findings. Please advice is their any higher authority I can contact regarding this. Gantlet (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since in almost a week you have not answered the message I posted below, I am disabling this unblock request to prevent numerous administrators spending time coming here to check it, only to see that it is awaiting a response from you. If yo post another unblock request, I recommend responding to the points I asked about below. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2016 (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.

Now this is getting interesting. User:Dewatchdog was blocked as a sock of User:Rajithmohan (since renamed to User:Aarem). Of course Dewatchdog claimed to be "not the sock of any one". The list of your sockpuppets contains quite a few entries, but Dewatchdog is not among them. So either you lied back then, or you're lying now, but you cannot have been consistently truthful. I'm left to either believe the CheckUsers (as I mentioned among the most respected editors on Wikipedia), or a proven liar. Huon (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dude, I'm not lying. If User:Dewatchdog was not my sockpuppet, then it must be the user with which I had the edit war I mentioned earlier. I assumed that it was my sock puppet since I saw that name on my Revision history. This was 6 years back & I don't even remember the name of the temporary account I created for an edit war. I guess as an admin, you have the power to check it. And I no longer respect the so called respected editors anymore as they've made the biggest blunder in considering my user as a sockpuppet of some other person. Again, please tell me how I'm supposed to dispute against it with a higher authority. Gantlet (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The unblock template is not intended to be used for back-and-forth comminication. Declining this request (reply?) as the other is still open. SQL^{Query me!} 00:59, 2 May 2016 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Look. Either you tell me how exactly I can convince you guys or what you actually mean by a convincing reply. I don't know how to convince you guys that I don't have any sock puppet when you yourself are adamant that I have & when I ask for proof you won't show me. I remember the story of a man who claimed he knew how to stop death, but won't tell anyone, but insisted that his claims were true. I actually laugh at the incompetency of the CheckUsers because when I check the edit history of my so called sock puppet Rajeshbee, I mostly see Tamil films which I haven't even heard of. I just wanted to make some useful contributions & it's not like I'm getting paid or anything. If you wanna help a fellow contributor, the you can do so, or else I'll just be another guy who is gonna tell everyone about the incompetency of Wikipedia admins & how poorly they handle users Gantlet (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Already a request open above - there is no need to open further requests. SQL^{Query me!} 14:56, 2 May 2016 (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.

1. It looks to me as though you may well be telling the truth, and so I am willing to consider unblocking you. However, I need further information to help decide how to proceed. It will help if you can answer the following questions. (1) Are you paid for editing? (2) Has any of your editing been done in collaboration with any one else, either other Wikipedia editor or anyone who does not edit but coordinates or organises editing, or who advises on editing or in any other way makes an input?
2. A few words of advice on how to maximise the likelihood that administrators will consider your request favourably. Wikipedia administrators are volunteers, most of whom make a good-faith attempt to do the best job they can. Administrators have to make the best judgement possible in situations which are not ideal. You said above "it's clear to me that it's not at all foolproof", and that is 100% true: there is no method on earth which will always tell us for certain whether edits were made by one person, by more than one person acting together, or by more than one person acting independently. Very often, the evidence is so clear that to all intents and purposes it is certain, but sometimes it is not so clear, and a judgement has to be made. Unfortunately it is in the nature of judgements that they will not always be right. Most Wikipedia administrators are perfectly willing to accept that judgements on such issues as sockpuppetry are not infallible, and are willing to reconsider such judgements. However, if an administrator comes to review an unblock request, and sees an editor who angrily attacks other editors, accuses them of "incompetency", and so on, says that he or she does not respect other editors, and that he or she "laughs" at people who he or she thinks have made a mistake, then the administrator is likely to think it's just another one of those troublesome and uncooperative editors who will not or cannot edit collaboratively, and most probably he or she will choose to spend time on other work, such as reviewing an unblock request from someone who has made such a request in a more civil way. It is entirely possible that that is part of the reason why your request is still outstanding after quite a long time. You therefore may find it helpful to think carefully about how you express yourself in any future messages you post here. Also, several of the things you say indicate misunderstandings of how things work here. For example, you refer to "incompetency of the CheckUsers" because the editing history of your account is not similar to that of another account that has been suggested as a possible sockpuppet, but CheckUser data has nothing whatever to do with the nature of editing history: that is a completely separate issue. Again, in connection with the other account you used six years ago, you say "I guess as an admin, you have the power to check it", but administrators have no more power to check technical evidence than any other editors, and even CheckUsers can't check technical data from several years back, as the information is not kept for that long. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I took a break from editing out of mere frustration since my account was erroneously blocked. I just found out that the account Rajeshbieee which you guys told was my sock puppet is no longer blocked and is available now. I don't know whether it's because he succesfully appealed against the block or due to some other procedure, however, I can see that the account is active now. So it's clear that I'm not his sock puppet or vice versa, so I guess, I shouldn't stay blocked. Gantlet (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The offer I made still stands for the present, under the same conditions. However, there are three other points to mention. (1) Another fact has come to my attention since I wrote my message above. That fact makes me a little more doubtful than I was. (2) Sockpuppetry is not the only issue over which concerns have been expressed: there is also the question of promotional editing. (3) Even if it can be established beyond all reasonable doubt that you are not the same person as another account mentioned in the sockpuppet investigations, that will not close the issue, both because there are other accounts that have been mentioned and because different people acting in collaboration can under some circumstances fall under the sockpuppet policy: see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry. If you really are innocent of all charges then I can well imagine how frustrating this whole thing must be, but you are very unlikely to be unblocked unless you comment on the issues you have been asked about. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Okay. If you're talking about the points mentioned on top, let me clear those. (1) I'm not paid for editing and (2) No. I don't collaborate with anyone for editing. I've been on Wikipedia since 2006 and all my edits have been from my own level of knowledge and understanding. And if Rajeshbieee is unblocked and active, so that means you were confirmed we weren't related in anyway, right? Moreover if you check his edit history to mine, you can't find even a single common page which we've edited. So clearly, our interests are entirely different. Infact, most of the articles he's edited are ones I have zero knowledge for. So I'm rather surprised how you came to the conclusion that we're sock puppets. Any other questions I need to answer? Gantlet (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gantlet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)