User talk:Ravensfire/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive for 2024

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

the lawsuit was over on a judgment.

User repeatedly directed to the article talk page, this discussion is complete.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Peter Schiff has won the defamation lawsuit and the respondents were ordered to pay 550k each. I am uploading complete facts. Lovemjseo (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC) You're edit-warring and pushing what's not supported by the sources. You need to discuss this on the ARTICLE talk page. It's likely you will end up blocked (or blocked from the Schiff page) if you don't self-revert your last edit and commit to getting consensus on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC) I'm uploading complete facts. https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1086/2021/3924889/event/31614647/document/2196773 you are edit warring yourself. Lovemjseo (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Sigh. Cool, don't listen to advice. I think we're done here. Ravensfire (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Chak De! India

Stop changing the Chak De! India language, or you will be blocked. Chak De India was released in both English and Hindi. There was just a lot of mix. 136.61.220.103 (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Please read the documentation for the {{infobox film}}. The language is only for the primary language of the film in the original filming. Nothing in the article supports including english (hint - you need reliable sources for this. Ravensfire (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Do not change the subtitle 'Action Superstar' under the acting career section of Sunny Deol's page.

On Sunny Deol's page, under acting career section, you changed the subtitle "1990-2003: Action Superstar", to List of programs broadcast by Asianet"1990-2003: Established actor". The Action superstar is far more suitable to describe this phase of Sunny Deol's career instead of your suggestion. First, it marks the point that during this phase, Deol had success in the action genre, and second, the moniker of superstar marks the height of his popularity during this period (this moniker has been used by Box Office India and TOI to address Deol's influence during the 90s and early 00s). The subtitle "established actor" is too basic and doesn't reflect the true nature of the content below. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Parminder Sarwara, It's a section heading and yes, it should be fairly basic in description. This is an encyclopedia, not a hype sheet. Please follow WP:BRD and since you Bold change has been Reverted, you need to get consensus for the change by Discussing this on the article talk page. Remember that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and non-promotional in tone, written in a professional manner. Ravensfire (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Then why is the term "Superstardom" is used on Amitabh Bachchan's page? And this is not promotional, it is literally a fact. I can cite multiple sources for this but we can't link sources in the section heading. The section heading should represent what the content is about. By basic, I meant that Established actor is too vague, whereas Action superstar is more specific and precise, better descriptor of the section. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, other articles are hype-driven. Easy counter-example from articles that get far more attention - Sylvester Stallone, Chris Evans (actor) and especially Amy Adams which is a Featured Article, which recognizes exceptional quality in articles. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That is just a matter of opinion. And they aren't necessarily hype driven if it's literally true. Amitabh was a superstar and the section heading used in his page makes complete sense. Isn't the entire point of Wikipedia is for editors to contribute verified information, if the information is verified, there should be no incentive to change it. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're not going to respond, I will go ahead and change the section heading. Alright? Parminder Sarwara (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Parminder Sarwara, please start a discussion on the article talk page for this. I continue to object to your opinion that this is a better section heading, as that's all it is, it's your opinion and it's getting into original research by applying titles like this to broad timeframes. The best guidance youList of programs broadcast by Asianet can find is what featured articles use, as those are vetted by a broad range of editors before getting that status, and the examples I showed you don't use language like that. But please, the article talk page going forward. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am still pretty new to this. Where is the article talk page and how do I post there? And what's going to happen if I post there? Parminder Sarwara (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

So most pages on Wikipedia have a main page and a talk page. Sunny Deol and Talk:Sunny Deol. When you're wanting to discuss article content, it's tempting and initially easier to just use the user talk page of the other person, but there's a couple of issues with that approach. One, it can be challenging when multiple people are involved. Two, articles often have a wider range of interested people watching the article (and the associated talk page) then would be watching a specific user's talk page, so you cut out potential participants by using a user talk page. Finally, it's always far easier to have discussions about article content in one place, the article talk page, as it allows editors in the future to understand how the page content evolved over time. When the discussion happens in multiple user pages, that's nearly impossible to find. An ideal approach is to use start a discussion on the article talk page and leave a note on user talk pages pointing to that discussion. Remember Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, having other editors see and get involved in content discussions is a Good Thing(tm) and brings more viewpoints that can lead to a better consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Raven, I have a lot to say about Asianet

A guy called Timothy blue, that person who don't have any idea about Asianet channel blocked me despite me adding a lot of data from my own research as for this guy there are no references?? What a person he is??? Let me ask you do you think it is easy to get references from 1993 to 2008 regarding Asianet programs from internet?? A guy who doesn't even know a serial like chandanamazha, or great shows like kannadi, nammal thammil being telecasted is blocking me for what reason??? Manish Asianet (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Manish Asianet, first, please don't come here with personal attacks on another editor. That's not helpful. The issue with your edits is that they are contrary to one of the main concepts of Wikipedia, that information in articles can be verified by the reader. That's done by including references that support the information in the articles. I assure you that every editor who's been around more than a few months has run into the scenario where they can't find a good reference for what they want to add. Whether it doesn't exist, or you can find it online but it's on a blog, personal website, forum or some other unreliable source.

Generally, yes, the right answer is to realize that without those sources, the information can't be added to the article. Remember that readers don't know you or me (not to mention you don't know me or visa versa), so the only way they can trust what's in the article is to have that reference. This is true for math articles, geography articles and yes, media articles. Old films and shows in the US are in the same situation, sources are challenging to find online. Remember though that offline resources ARE allowed (WP:OFFLINE), for example newspaper articles that haven't been archived online but are accessible in some manner and you can completely describe the source. Some newspapers are available on microfiche still, but they haven't been put online. Or there may be just a clipping, but with enough to know the paper, date and page.

Adding information without sources is called original research, and it's really not allowed here. I completely get your frustration, but you also need to realize that Wikipedia strives to be a professional encyclopedia and that comes with some requirements. If this was a Fandom style wiki, you're probably all good, but there's a higher standard here. Hope this helps you understand where TimothyBlue is coming from. They have to enforce those standards equally on all editors. It's not personal, and they do care about the topic. You're a new editor here, take the advice and suggestions you've been given as they are intended, to help you understand how Wikipedia works, suggest ways to address the concerns that have been raised and ultimately help you be a better editor and improve Wikipedia as a whole.

TimothyBlue isn't an admin, so they cannot block you from editing, but they can leave warning messages and try to get you to understand the issues with your edits and if needed, they can raise the concerns on an admin noticeboard for an admin to review and determine if action needs to be taken. Please don't ignore their warnings, but understand they are trying to be helpful and guide you towards what's needed to address the concerns they have with your edits. Ravensfire (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sourcing concerns around older shows highlights something I see with far too many TV channels, and not just in India. They have what's on right now, but only what's on right now. Why not have a history page, with what they've shown in the past. Wishful thinking, I suspect, most Indian award show websites don't even have the past nominees and winners, which is just crazy. Ravensfire (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

this reply is completely professional Manish Asianet (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: I have recently done 3 reverts on List of programs broadcast by Asianet but doing more seems a bit pointless as I do not think that I could keep up with the rate of additions. I also put a "Please stop attacking other editors" warning on User talk:Manish Asianet on 20 Jan 2024. I did not know about your exchange here. Most of the recent refs seem to be from Asianet website so they do not help.
I had earlier (18 Jan) put a request on AN/I about another editor's related edits with no refs (now in archive 1147). That resulted in a block.
Unless you suggest otherwise I do not plan to get involved further.BlueWren0123 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Mahmud Invasion of Bhatia (1004)

Thank you very much for correcting the date of my article reference Thank you very much Varmakumar200 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

G P SIPPY PIC

HELLO ,SIR

I am a photographer of the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association -Mumbai

From 1937 to 2023, as much as IMPPA president has become the Wikipedia of the people, it is the Image President's time. I have uploaded a photo restoration. digiatally dashboard ready for imppa Ashvin29 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

About the Edit to SIIMA page.

Hello, I have made some genuine edits to the SIIMA page, also added a proof in the form of the press release, (link from Deccan Chronicle) Request you not to remove the added content. Bmariyappa (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The source being a press release only supports the WP:UNDUE and promotional nature of the edit. I'm quite disappointed that you just put back in the same edit, with the same problems without even trying to address any of the concerns. This is clear promotional editing, please don't add it to the article. Ravensfire (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

How do we resolve this issue.

please advise

the information I put there is genuine 103.92.100.249 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The first step is to stop ignoring the reasons why it's being removed and discuss on the article talk page, not here. Pushing the same promotional material with a declared paid editing is not helpful though, the expectation are higher as a paid editor (for better or worse) but right now if anyone made those edits it would be removed. Ravensfire (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see anyone in the article talk page who is responsible for reverting my edits.

can you please help me on this Bmariyappa (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, read the comments above and the edit summaries I've left on the problems with your edits. Ravensfire (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Not understanding please advise. Please tell me which Part of it is promotional in nature Bmariyappa (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I will remove them Bmariyappa (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Basically, everything. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Con I simply mention, that invenio origin has tied up with siima, as strategic partner Bmariyappa (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

To a press release? No. Yes, that's promotional. Okay, you REALLY need to read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE among other helpful Wikipedia pages. After that, use the ARTICLE talk page to explain what you want to add, how it's WP:NPOV and not WP:UNDUE and the sources and how they meet WP:RS. Ravensfire (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

So you are advising me to add a topic in article talk page and Seek approval from the concerned approves Bmariyappa (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Approvers Bmariyappa (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ravensfire vandalising Super Singer 10 page

Hi @Ravensfire. We have noticed you are vandalising the information on the page, such as links to singers. There are so many people with the same name, and to avoid confusion, links have been generated, which is NOT overlinking. Also, key codes, such as BP and BE were in bold to make it clear to the reader, which has also been vandalised. Cleaning up the images improved the article view however cleaning up the links to people and colour codes has been subject to vandalism. 81.104.111.169 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Singer_10 - PLease stop vandalising the information on this page. The reader deserves access to accurate information and not misinformation! 81.104.111.169 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. First, read WP:NOTVAND. Do not call edits vandalism when they clearly are not. Second, read WP:OVERLINK, which is EXACTLY what you are doing there. Do NOT link everything possible. In addition, you're adding easter egg links. If the person doesn't have an article, don't link to a show they might have been on in the tables. Mention it at the top when you are listing the competitors. You MUST follow Wikipedia's guidelines, and that article is an utter mess, still. I haven't even touched the WP:COLOR issues going on. Ravensfire (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ravensfire Wikipedia's guidelines do not state that everything should be in plain text. 81.104.111.169 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ravensfire Everything in plain text would be a mess and confusing for the reader to view the article. 81.104.111.169 (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SEAOFBLUE. Which is the same thing as above. Don't link every time a name is mentioned and on a person's name, generally link to just their name. Ravensfire (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

And IP - you really need to read MOS:COLORS. The colors are incredibly garish, challenging to read text against and aren't even close to the standards in the MOS. Yes, you need to follow those. Using color is a terrible way to convey important meaning. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ravensfire It depends on which colour. But colours are not categorised as an utter mess. They are known to easily help the reader identify the sections. 81.104.111.169 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IP - just read the page, will you? The contrast is crap. Ravensfire (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ravensfire Names need to be linked otherwise misinformation in Wikipedia would occur, such as understanding wrong names. Misinformation in Wikipedia is not acceptable. 81.104.111.169 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Read. The. Page. I. Linked. This isn't a debate, further repetitive posts will be removed as disruptive. You've been pointed to the relevant pages that you are expected to follow. Ravensfire (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Ek Jhoothi Love Story

Do you have a specific tool you use for this? I would like to be able to do it without copying and pasting page titles into a separate page. Is it Twinkle or something close? CNMall41 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41, I use Enterpriseys's CV Revdel script - User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. Makes the process really easy. With the script installed, go to the page history, run the script and it's pretty self-evident. From the WP:CVTOOLS page, I also have the Earwig's Copyvio Detector for helping me check if an article has problems. It's not perfect, and sometimes I just select sections of the article and run them through a web-search to see what comes up. Wikipedia:Deputy is also helpful, especially when you're dealing with a full-blown CCI investigation. Ravensfire (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This is perfect. Thank you. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ananda Ashru

Are you using Ananda Ashru as a honeypot, or do you want me to protect it?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo, I'm okay with protecting it. Symon's not the most subtle sock out there. Appreciate the offer though! Ravensfire (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done. Thanks for the cleanup, it's appreciated.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Stop Removing Ratings From Bigg Boss Malayalam Pages

Please Stop Removing Ratings. Ratings Are There For Future Reference And Comparison Between Seasons. Once Lost These Are Very Hard To Retrieve. Once I Have Provided The References Also Why Are You Removing These. What Do You Think-Do You Expect To Find Ratings In A Page In a Table Like One In Wikipedia. First Check Out How And Where Ratings Are Published Before Asking For References. I Have Provided Link To Barc India Website Which Is The Official Source Of Ratings, Also Note That Ratings Of All Programs Are Not Available In Barc India Page(Especially Of Seasons 1 Or 2 Years Ago),So There Are Different Websites Which Publish Barc Ratings. I Provided The Link To Facebook Page Of Asianet supporters Kerala(ASK) Page Which Are Source Of Bigg Boss Ratings. Dont Expect Any Better Source Available For Bigg Boss Ratings. If You Want-Check Out And Add Some. I Have Given A Very Detailed Reply, Please Dont Make Reverts, It Is Easy For You To Revert, But Adding Trp Ratings Takes Time...Consider It Also Alen Hermen (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alen Hermen unless adequate sources are added, they will continue to be removed. sources need to be there for each data point as right now it looks like those numbers are made up out of thin air. please read WP:V. Sources do need to be specific - putting a single link to the top level page of a website for dozens of ratings is NOT helpful. It's like linking to the top page of a newspaper and telling the reader "it's all there! you just have to go find each individual fact on your own!". That's not how Wikipedia works, sources need to be specific. 'Ravensfire (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It will not be possible for adding sources for each week rating. The source which I added is where I get the Ratings if someone check the the link which I added they will get the appropriate Source. Do you think that all data in Wikipedia pages are sourced. Go and source all data in Wikipedia if you can in a lifetime ... Alen Hermen (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alen Hermen if it can't be sourced, then the informatoin needs to be removed until it IS sourced. Ignoring a problem is not helpful. Yes, i'm quite aware that there are other pages with issues - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're not talking about other pages, but about these pages. Please do not add the information back without adequate sources. Ravensfire (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Message from Dipta dutta 89667hgfYuj

Please Don't remove my topic. Next time I shall block you Dipta dutta 89667hgfYuj (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dipta dutta 89667hgfYuj First, no you won't because you can't.Neither you or I are admins, so neither one of us can block another editor. Second, if you continue to add information without a source, the next step is to report you for continuing to add unsourced material. You've already been blocked once for that only a few weeks ago, and usually blocks get longer each time. Don't add information without a reliable source so readers can verify what you've added is correct. Ravensfire (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Help

User:Srimonbanik2007 now editing on another ID as User:লাল সেলাম কমরেড

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Kerala_Legislative_Assembly_election&diff=prev&oldid=1210419541

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Kerala_Legislative_Assembly_election&diff=prev&oldid=1211574294

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_West_Bengal_Legislative_Assembly_election&diff=prev&oldid=1200884604

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_West_Bengal_Legislative_Assembly_election&diff=prev&oldid=1211574017

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Uttar_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election&diff=prev&oldid=1209917636

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Uttar_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election&diff=prev&oldid=1211552253 i do not know how to making report. Help 106.197.43.8 (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like sockpuppet Eswaran Naveen back hype Jyothika

[[1]]

[[2]]

2001:E68:5425:371D:280F:ED7:74DD:3E95 (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Help

the page Tamil Nadu State Film Award for Best Actress is being continuously edited by an anonymous user

User contributions for 2001:E68:5425:371D:280F:ED7:74DD:3E95

please do check the correct details according to last declaration of Tamil Nadu state film awards... I corrected it by considering proper sources....

Ravi chinthakayala (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The latest winner and superlatives are added as per source and references... By considering the table....

Hope you understand that good faith edits are always prevails...

😊❤️have a great evening 😊😊 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi chinthakayala (talk • contribs) 10:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously the sock of Eswaran Naveen returned and being disruptive right now. Reverting awards, content, etc Nehansaxan (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

A ln extended confirmed user

Don't know why this user keeps reverting the edits by new users especially the edits related to the film and television of Pakistan. This user keeps reverting the edits and removes the content even when sourced properly. Don't know what he wants. Please, solve this conflict. Thanks.154.80.70.196 (talk) 154.80.70.196 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Restoring to faulty version of the article

You recently restored Sylhet's lead to the non fixed version from my fixed version and didn't state any exact reason for it. I had fixed the issues it had previously and actually went to through many phases to check of anything was mistaken by me. Would you like to state your reason here? Darkedgeblood (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of the phrasing you added was pretty POV in tone - "rich historical tapestry tracing", "Among its esteemed landmarks", "revered as one of Bangladesh's holiest sites, drawing multitudes of pilgrims annually" - great on a site promoting tourism, not so great in an encyclopedia. The edit overall came across as promotional in tone, especially with that was there before. Ravensfire (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Like seriously Bro?

I work with the PR team of Badshah if you just wanna ruin the efforts of hours, before that just kindly go and check Spotify or some for once or add a source by yourself if that's the issue with you, it takes a lot of efforts to add a entire album in the discography, Behave Parth1221 (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Parth1221, For sources, YOU have the WP:BURDEN to add the sources for the edits you make, not anyone else. If you continue to add unsourced information to articles, it will continue to be removed. Behave yourself. Remember you have been blocked for making unsourced edits back in October. Blocks tend to escalate in length, so just add the sources. I know you know how to use them.

In addition, before you make any further edits, you need to read WP:PAID and make the required declarations. Yes, you are being paid to edit here. Yes, it is allowed, but there are some restrictions. Some of the highly POV nature of your edits now make a lot of sense and your edits will certainly be under more scrutiny. I will also leave a WP:PAID notice message on your talk page to make absolutely clear you see the message about it. Ravensfire (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not paid in any way, i do this as own free will and contribution, I am a contributer to various articles, Also from when does listimg songs from a artists is a promotional work? Its way wiser and smarter if you would've just added the source by merely checking through spotify or YT or the label instead of deleting the entirity of Hard Work of one which is factual Parth1221 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're working with this person's PR team, at a minimum there's some WP:COI happening here. And yes, the WP:BURDEN is on you to get the sources so readers can verify what's in the article. That's a core pillar of Wikipedia. And no, you cannot expect the reader to go find the sources. And no, I won't find the sources for you either. That's on you - the person who's adding the information. Far wiser and smarter if you'd just adding the sources when you make the edit. Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello. Can you see if this new user called User:Horace Dendy is also a sockpuppet? It feels like same person as User:লাল সেলাম কমরেড. This new account started editing on 11 March, 2 days after old account got blocked and has similar annoying behavior on the same pages. MrMkG (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@MrMkG, if you didn't notice, XH16167113 was blocked on March 14 and was active from March 12 to March 14, meaning there was overlapping periods of editing. The overlap between those two accounts is not as much as you would think - [3]. I looked at them and I'm honestly not sure if they are a SB2007 sock or not. You're welcome to make the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Srimonbanik2007 if you think you have enough good evidence to justify a CU taking a check. Ravensfire (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly though, I wouldn't right now. Wait for the next SB2007 sock to show up and then ask for a CU check for possible sleepers. Ravensfire (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There is another new account in the investigation so should I ask to check for possible sleepers now? Look at the overlap between Horace Dendy and লাল সেলাম কমরেড accounts too - [4]. Maybe he has made different accounts to edit different kinds of pages. MrMkG (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Look at the kind of edits he is making too - [5]. MrMkG (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a report for Ramchandra Reddy (R.C. Reddy) to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Srimonbanik2007 and asked for a CU check. You're welcome to add a report for Horace Dendy, ideally you should include a couple of examples of the suspected account making the same or nearly identical edit as a prior sock. Right now, I don't have the time to really go through their edits to see about making a solid case. Ravensfire (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@MrMkG Dendy has been CU blocked as a SB2007 sock. Thank you for your persistence in this when I wasn't sure. I'm not sure I would have asked for a cu without the research you had done. Ravensfire (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

About my Changes Reverting

Hello, I have noticed that you had reverted by contributions as wells in summary you mentioned me as rv sock. If you found my mistakes in my contributions please kindly contact my Talk Page and I'll try to improve myself. Thank you Jishini (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jishini, simply please stop your continued block evasion. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a blocker. Please Jishini (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We're not that stupid. Read WP:BLOCKEVADE. As you create new accounts, all edits from those account can and will be reverted unread. You've been told what to do, you even seemed eager to follow through on the Standard Offer. And it's clearly just another lie from you. Ravensfire (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverting Edits - Nauman335 sock (Huhaa123)

Another Nauman335 sock professing innocence, and then CU blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I noticed that you revert my recent edits as the summary of rv sock of Nauman335. Can i ask you why you Revert and mention me as a sock user. These are just simple edits and conservative. Please don't tag me in the sock list. I'm here as a new user and making just minor edits. Thank you Huhaa123 (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @Huhaa123 once again, read WP:BLOCKEVADE and especially WP:BANREVERT. As you continue to create new accounts and edit, they will continue to be reverted. Ravensfire (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) But I'm not a sock. Do you have any proof? Huhaa123 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) SPI report has been filed with the evidence. Ravensfire (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Where? Huhaa123 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Same place all of your extensive list of other socks have been reported - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335. Ravensfire (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC) But I do not belong to any other accounts. This is totally unfair to me. Huhaa123 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) And now CU blocked as a sock puppet. Ravensfire (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)