Onceshook1
Welcome!
edit
|
Why I have been blocked? There has been no edit war from my side nor I have created some ruckus. I have received praises from people for giving references and improving articles. Dharmdyaksha there is no proper reason to have me blocked.Just because I disagree with you, you cannot block me. Onceshook1 (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- No one has blocked you. You can still edit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Shehzada, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "
{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. - The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Shehzada was changed by Onceshook1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.901554 on 2012-01-06T03:02:33+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Just letting you know that this has been nominated for speedy deletion, using Template:db-disambig. Please see WP:TWODABS. Feel free to remove it if you disagree. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
edit
Message added 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Songs of Rajesh Khanna
editCould you please provide source where it is said that Rajesh Khanna has sung songs for Safar, Ajnabee and also some other movies where you have added him as singer (not sure if imdb is a good source of this) and also please don't overlink as you did in Ajnabee. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hangal
editWhile you added usefll sources, you also made several unsourced additions/changes. Please cite these, such as his birthdayLihaas (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The sources we have list his afe as 95, what you added dint have a source. Do you have something to indicate this? If so, then we can change it. (mind you, i know for a fact the indian media is rubbish. worked there and had collgeaues at other outlets who indicate they source from WP. But we still need some source)Lihaas (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I wasnt disputing that he may be (and he tv9/rediff are plausible), its just that at the time there was no source. Though now we have ostensible contradictions with RS. Perhps query this on talk on elsewhere. I dont know which one to believe. Also the ones dont mention the ate.Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- For the records, oyou added some sources to a worefully undersourced page. Kudos on that. We need a lo tmore too though ;)Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Some nice additions with sources, but wheres the 1914 number coming from? We now have 1914, 1915, and 1917.Lihaas (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- For the records, oyou added some sources to a worefully undersourced page. Kudos on that. We need a lo tmore too though ;)Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I wasnt disputing that he may be (and he tv9/rediff are plausible), its just that at the time there was no source. Though now we have ostensible contradictions with RS. Perhps query this on talk on elsewhere. I dont know which one to believe. Also the ones dont mention the ate.Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link Onceshook1. I'll go through the book and add what's possible. Jay (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Statistics
editPlease stop addings statistics like "A had 6 hits and 3 flops with B and 2 hits and 8 flops with C" to Bollywood actor's pages. Thats a poor way of writing encyclopedia. Also the references you are giving are not very best at reliability. Hence please stop giving such mathematical puzzles to our readers. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- You claimed here that Shehzada received "4 stars by critics in Bollywood Guide Collections". That claim is not supported by the supporting reference. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Dhamrdyaksha /Animesh Kulkarni - http://entertainment.in.msn.com/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=4155691&page=9 - Aanchal was a hit, Shehzada was a box office hit too - see http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-05/news-interviews/30246701_1_boney-anil-kapoor-woh-saat-din and http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=178&catName=MTk3Mg== and for Daag - see http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=179&catName=MTk3Mw==. So that proves Rakhee had all her 3 films with Khanna has hits and so there is a need to mention that. As far as Bollywood Collections - is concerned its a boOK where stars are provided - 4 0r 5 etc and also movies are categorised as Gold or Silver indicating whether its a hit of flop. If its a flop you would not find any stars or classification as gold or silver.Search for it in google books. Onceshook1 (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Box Office India calls Shehzada as "semi-hit". What Anil Kapoor calls it is immaterial.
Box Office India doesn't even include Aanchal (1980 film) in its top 25 list of that year. What glamour website MSN calls it is immaterial.
And if you are claiming certain stars for a certain film based on some book, provide reference to that book in the article. People are not gonna wait for me to question it and then read your answer on your talk page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Box Office India calls Shehzada as "semi-hit". What Anil Kapoor calls it is immaterial.
Onceshook, please read WP:OR. Many people have asked you to do this in the past. You must not draw your own conclusions based on information from different sources. And the information is trivial and meaningless in either case, ad Dharmadhyakshal rightly points out. Please stop adding that kind of synthesis without encyclopedic value unless you get a consensus in the ARTICLE talk pages (not your own talk page, or somebody else's user talk page) in favour of it.--bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Surinder Kapoor's son (producer of Shehzada) - himself accepts that the film worked well. What better source do you require? The box office site calls it semi hit meaning it did work well.Onceshook1 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at the talk page of Rakhee article.Have answered back all queries. Onceshook1 (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
edit
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shrik88music for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
edit | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Shrik88music (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC) |
Onceshook1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I should have never been blocked as I have never indulged in edit warring but have contributed to the articles properly with proper arguments. The prime reason for my block is I defended myself justifying my edits to the wiki article on Rakhee. Have been accused of glorifying Rajesh Khanna. It seems if any one dares to mention any association with the name Rajesh Khanna in any wiki article, user is suspected to be a sock puppet.Have a look at the talk page of rakhee where I have given answer to the questions put by Animesh Kulkarni in Sockpuppet_investigations/Shrik88music that - http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-18/news-interviews/33925177_1_rajesh-khanna-kabhi-hindi-film - Its Rakhee who says that Rajesh Khnana brought in good films and Amitabh brought in bad films. Its not something I have added to GLORIFY khanna!! User Dharmdyaksha or Animesh Kulkarni and also Shahid did not respond to my concerns in any of the talk pages. Also I have contributed to articles pertaining to others who have nothing to do with Khanna - this point has been ignored. The discussion here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shrik88music is only pertaining to those which are pertaining to wiki articles on actors who are famous for their association with Mr. Khanna so it smere co-incidence and its but obvious that thses articles are bound to have name of Khanna.Another example Shahid has an aversion to mentioning Khanna's name in any article - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shabana_Azmi&diff=prev&oldid=504429006. When Shabana Azmi herself says in interview to India Today - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/shabana-azmi-rajesh-khanna-picture-of-contradictions/1/209125.html that her 7 films were successful opposte Khanna how can the fact be removed from wikipedia?? I am here in wiki pedia to contribute facts with references in consultation with every others who are interested in improving the artciles. Not here to vandalise. So request you to unblock after questioning the concerned users about the specific points raised here. Onceshook1 (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This unblock request does not address the issue that resulted in your block. I note the similarity between this unblock request and the several declined unblock requests by Shrik88music. If you continue to avoid the issue you will eventually lose the ability to edit this page, too. Tiderolls 05:54, 4 October 2012 (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.
Onceshook1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts - Have read it but I have not indulged in disruptive editing. If blocked unnecessarily then what is the solution? Have operated through this account Onceshook1.Have been blocked solely for contributing to wiki articles related to those who have association with Rajesh Khanna. Have addressed my concerns above. Blocked only because they do not want me to contribute to any article related to any person having something to do with Khanna. They do not want to show facts. Example see the Rakhee talk page. They have not blocked me for any other article I have contributed but only for those articles which have any thing to do with Khanna!! Have contributed for articles on Ajithkumar, Hangal etc for which I have received only praises but the moment Khanna's name is taken Iam blocked. Have justified and gave reasons for each point raised in Sockpuppet_investigations/Shrik88music. Please go through the links I have given in above and see how users Shahid, bonadea, dharmdyaksha have repeatedly reverted inspite of clear cut references having been given.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shabana_Azmi&diff=prev&oldid=504429006. When Shabana Azmi herself says in interview to India Today - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/shabana-azmi-rajesh-khanna-picture-of-contradictions/1/209125.html that her 7 films were successful opposte Khanna how can the fact be removed from wikipedia?? Onceshook1 (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I asked you if you were Shiriki88music a couple of months ago and you said no, and now agreeing that you are. You have just continued the same behavior that resulted in blocks of your earlier socks and you are not addressing those reasons at all. Provide a valid rationale for unblock through your main account, if not your talk page access will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 5 October 2012 (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.
Onceshook1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Am operating through only one account. If Iam blocked and the issues raised by me falls into deaf ears, what Am I supposed to do?None of them have answers to the specific queries I have raised up above here. I do not have passwords of any previous account. The same specific people have continued the same behavior that resulted in blocks and never answers have been given to the specific queries raised by me.Main account? There is nothing like that with me and so Iam currently speaking to you from here, SpacemanSpiff. Valid Rationale - I am provider of facts and always give online references. its that if you seriously go through my contributions you would always find that all of them have been facts backed by references but removed by the above specific users. Never ever indulged in edit warring or in disruptive editing nor I have operated 2 accounts at the same time as there is no need for it.Others indulged in edit warring but since I do not have authority to get them blocked in turn I have been blocked . Best Example - is my recent edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raakhee&diff=514610200&oldid=514018193 - Just see my comments too in talk page and in comments made while editing.In-spite of saying - "stop your petty edit warring and WP:OWN behaviour. Read Talk Page." the users continue to accuse me of glorifying Khnanna!!! and do not bother to discuss the issues in talk page either. Onceshook1 (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are fairly obviously the same person who was blocked under the Shrik88music account. You cannot just create a new account and pretend that you are allowed to edit Wikipedia. You aren't until you get your block resolved. Let me suggest you use WP:BASC to resolve the problem, though you may want to take some time away from Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Standard offer. Jayron32 03:48, 6 October 2012 (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.
Your original block was because of disruptive editing. To address the point you make above, you were informed many times, and given many links to relevant policies, about the fact that all facts do not belong in Wikipedia. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it is encyclopedic. Your endless adding of minor trivia details is one of several reasons your editing is disruptive. Hence, your block was clearly not "unnecessary", and the only way you could be allowed to edit Wikipedia again is to make an unblock appeal that shows that you understand how your previous editing was disruptive. Creating a new account (and continuing the same behaviour) will only make it less and less likely that you will ever be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. --bonadea contributions talk 20:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Onceshook1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
When there was original block I was entirely new and did not know even how to provide references, difference between blogs and a proper site and how to sign talk pages etc. That time it was okay that I was blocked because they misunderstood it as disruptive editing. But after that I have moved on and improved. But this time round classifying what I did as disruptive editing is rubbish. Be honest in assessing and concluding upon me and my edits. See bonadea, how can you say that my editing is disruptive this time round as the user Onceshook1. This time I have been blocked only cause I have contributed well to the wiki article on Rakhee. Before touching that article I had contributed to Ajithkumar, A K Hangal for which I was praised as they were articles where citations were needed and I provided more information and references too. But in Rakhee article before in edited it was in unencyclopedic - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raakhee&oldid=511511556 - this version had many flaws. So I added informations and corrected the article after raising my concerns in talk page. I made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raakhee&oldid=514610200 , where I incorporated all those things which were missing earlier and removed those which were unencyclopedic, that too with warning to all those indulging in edit warring that - Please stop your petty edit warring and WP:OWN behaviour. Read Talk Page. My whole version was accepted but the moment Rakhee's films with Rajesh Khanna were mentioned in the article, the line was removed and I was also blocked. Is it not then that if any wiki article contains the name Rajesh Khanna in it, that line is deliberately removed and Am accused of glorifying Khanna? All lines which I had contributed with references were retained but the 2 lines - "She had 3 hits with Rajesh Khanna - Shehzada, Daag and Aanchal." and "She said in an interview to Mumbai Mirror in 2012, "Rajesh Khanna brought good films. Amitabh Bachchan brought bad films." were removed. That shows these users in particular have an aversion to that name.When Rakhee herself says so in her interview - http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/30/201209192012091903052140436897fc2/Today%E2%80%99s-hits-are-7day-wonders.html, then how does it result in me indulging in disruptive editing? My intentions are not to vandalise articles but to provide fcats only if I have references. Another example - Please go through the links I have given in above and see how users Shahid, bonadea, dharmdyaksha have repeatedly reverted inspite of clear cut references having been given.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shabana_Azmi&diff=prev&oldid=504429006. When Shabana Azmi herself says in interview to India Today - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/shabana-azmi-rajesh-khanna-picture-of-contradictions/1/209125.html that her 7 films were successful opposte Khanna how can the fact be removed from wikipedia?? Also help wit the email id - arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. How its to be written? All facts do not belong in Wikipedia - I agree but these pertaining to Rakhee and Shabana article were not some trivia but crucial points in their respective career. Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts - Have read it and would not open more than an account if iam unblocked. Infact I never operated 2 accounts together. My editing may have been disruptive in the past when I was newly exposed to wikipedia but not after that. I do not wish to open any new account if I am unblocked from this account and people understand that I am not here to vandalise. But if people without talking to me, just revert article and just block me if I agree to disagree with them then I was forced to open new account. As bonadea you have said that if i agree that in past my edits have been disruptive and if I agree that I indeed had opened my 1st account in wiki as Shrik88 and that if i send an unlock request, i may be unblocked - I have done that already. I promise not to indulge in any disruptive editing but people must also co-operate with me. Do unblock me and then I will work together with all of you, only in best interests of the article. But the matters raised by me also needed to be resolved. Infact i always believe in talking out in talk page but that has not yielded any response in the past. Hope I am unblocked this time and henceforth such thing does not happen. Onceshook1 (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This lengthy request is almost completely irrelevant to the reason for your block. This account is blocked because you already have a Wikipedia account. If that account is blocked, it is you who were blocked - you aren't allowed to change your name to not be blocked, just as a prisoner isn't released from prison if he changes his name. Since this is your fourth unblock request, and this account is never going to be unblocked - it is a sockpuppet account, not your original account- I'm going to help by locking this talk page. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:11, 11 October 2012 (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.
Do you understand that creating new accounts is not allowed, regardless of whether you are unblocked or not? You said that you were forced to open [a] new account - that is completely incorrect, you should not have created any new accounts at all when you were first blocked. Nobody forced you to act disruptively, like you did when you deceptively created new accounts. (Please note that I am a regular editor and not an administrator. I can't block or unblock editors and don't have the same knowledge of the blocking policies as the administrators have. I certainly made no promises about what would happen if you did in fact submit a valid unblock request, I just made the observation that it was the only way you could be allowed to edit again.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)