Magicsan

Welcome!

Hello, Magicsan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your user page

You appear to have copied your user page from User:Param Mudgal. I have removed the claims to user rights, project membership, etc. which you do not have. Please do not re-add them. I also strongly suggest that you remove the barnstars which were not awarded to you. They were awarded to Param Mudgal. You may not have intended it, but this is very deceptive, and not a good way to start on Wikipedia. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Regards, Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, ill remove them right away, it was just to create a base page Magicsan (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mentor

Hi Magicsan,

WP:Co-op has matched me as as suitable mentor, as I have experience in technical editing.

Wikipedia is generally a helpful place, there's lots of introductions to various topics under "Help" over to the left, there's the WP:Wikipedia Adventure which will take you through a lot of useful basics.

If you have any questions, feel free to as me on my talk page, it's likely that someone else will answer before I do, but getting a good answer is what matters!

Another good places for questions is WP:Teahouse. If you have a Wikipedia technical question that seems advanced Village pump (technical) is a good place for it. (For general technical questions WP:Reference desk is good.)

Let me know if there's anything you need help with.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Richard Magicsan (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omallur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red dragon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion process

Hi! It's worth looking at a few other AfD's to get an understanding of why and how articles get deleted on Wikipedia.

The most common reason is that an article is about a subject that we don't want to cover ("My pet goldfish", "A neat idea I had", "My garage band"). These subjects generally don't belong in an encyclopaedia. Other subjects clearly do, for example: modern nation states, Nobel prize winners, the chemical elements. Long ago Wikipedians came to consensus over what subjects we wish to include, the dividing line is established by what we call "notability". In other words as an encyclopedia we only write about subjects that have attracted serious commentary. This is covered by the General Notability Guideline also known as WP:GNG or just GNG. (There are some subject specific guidelines too.)

There are other good reasons to delete an article, for example copyright violations.

Lets look at the three deletion discussions you have proposed, in reverse order:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borki, Żuromin County

The rationale "it's a stub" is not a good reason for deletion. Many articles start as stubs, currently we have nearly 2 million of them, at Category:All stub articles - the second most common page type after redirects! Other things that wouldn't be a good rationale are bad spelling, grammar, lack of references (except for biographies of living people), poor layout - even being written in another language might not cut it - because all these things can be fixed.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Seve121/sandbox

You put this up for deletion because it was a copy of Microphone. Users often use their sandbox to work on improvements to articles. It is generally not liked if these hang around for a very long time, but they are more or less harmless. This was deleted mainly because it was part of a hoax about the subject of "telepatch"es.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe O'Brien Field

Your rationale was "totally useless" - useless to who? The article gives some facts that could be useful to a reader. It may be that it is not notable, in which case it is a suitable candidate for AfD - with a rationale such as "Does not meet WP:GNG". Ideally one is expected to look for sources first (WP:BEFORE). Of course there are other fates than deletion, for example this page might be better merged to Elizabethton Twins - that sort of thing can be done without AfD, either following talk page discussion or as a WP:BOLD merge.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC).
hello rich. i was surprised to find that my account was infinitely blocked. I have been labelled as a sock-puppet of someone i have never heard of. I would like your help in this matter. If you go through my contribs you wonn't find a single instance of vandalism, thanks,Magicsan (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(Not infinitely but indefinitely - until such time as there is reason to unblock it.)

It's questionable whether the creation of the Chammandi (the movie) article constitutes vandalism. It certainly does not pass the WP:GNG I explained above, and fake references are not likely to be treated as minor infractions. In order to get unblocked you will need to demonstrate that you understand the issues around your editing, and the editing of the other accounts involved, and make it clear that you do not intend to make those mistakes again.

You can be sure that people are watching the page Chammandi (the movie), and the other pages where there have been issues concerning this account, such as the unsourced, and probably inappropriate, addition to Panicker.

Attempting to edit subjects you are too close to (like your family, or an amateur film) is likely to lead to problems.

Attempting to secretly change accounts is likely to be spotted, and not helpful. (Look at this for example.)

If you succeed in getting unblocked there is still a lot to learn here, you might find it preferable to come back in a year or two.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC).

September 2015

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello beeblebrox. I was very shocked when i came back from school and saw my block. I would like to confirm that there is no connection between me and this other sock puppet ring. This can also be backed up by the fact that i have done only constructive edits to Wikipedia and not a single case of vandalism. I mainly specialized in editing pages pertaining to kerala and welcoming new users. On inspecting the sock puppet case page, i found no relation between the demarcated offenders and my account. Please review the block and i hope you see me fit to continue editing again. thanks, Magicsan (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At this point, I'm not even interested in looking at sockpuppetry evidence because the hoax you posted is a blockable offence in its own right. Max Semenik (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2015 (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.

• Note to patrolling admins: See this section of the blocking admin's talk page for the extensive evidence of socking. Note also the hoax article created by Magicsan at Chammandi (the movie) which I have now proposed for deletion. – Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator note. I remain convinced by the behavioral evidence that this user is a sock. However, as always I welcome an independent review by any uninvolved admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel my contribution list should be taken a look at. The edits that i have made are totally constructive and based on hard facts.Shouldn't the case be about whether i have improved wikipedia or not?Instead i am connected to a a random sockpuppeter

-(. I also propse that the block period be made a one month one,so that i can prove that i am NOT a sockpuppet and in here to help.I again ask for you to reconsider the fact that i haven't blatantly proceded to do any vandalism.

thanks, Magicsan (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)