User talk:Nevaunderestimate

January 2024

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Pushpa 2: The Rule—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Raja Saab, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nevaunderestimate! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Prabhas filmography and awards‎ that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. — Archer1234 (t·c) 04:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Prabhas, you may be blocked from editing.
Do not delete short descriptions, hatnotes or references - Arjayay (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Prabhas, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

{{infobox person}} instructs us that the format for |education= is "degree, institution, and year, if relevant".

— Archer1234 (t·c) 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infoBox is showing a wrong university. The university Prabhas attended is unfortunately not there in Wiki to link it. But due to a similar name, the infobox is linking another university. Nevaunderestimate (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see. It would have been helpful for you to have stated the reason in the edit summary. In any event, removing the school's name is not the solution; removing the link is. I have removed the link to the wrong college and added a disambiguator to clarify that it is the school in Hyderabad. Thank you. — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will keep that in mind. Nevaunderestimate (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India is a questionable source per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Stop adding it again and again. Aishwaryasuressh (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding what? Nevaunderestimate (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Budget The Raja Saab

Hi Nevaunderestimate. Koimoi is an unreliable source. Please do not use it for any film related articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Nevaunderestimate (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Stop uploading images that you don't have the rights for, and stop adding them to articles. If you continue to do this then your editing privileges will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 12:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are released for public & media usage in articles. And poor quality images in these pages are affecting such wiki pages. I wouldn’t have uploaded the new if WIki offered better quality images. Nevaunderestimate (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked now? After the issue has been sorted? I haven’t uploaded any images after the warning above? Nevaunderestimate (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevaunderestimate (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the Unblock request and I haven’t received any response. Please update on the request. Nevaunderestimate (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be helpful to follow the instructions in the block notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been falsely blocked accusing to be a Sock account. This account by name (User:WayfarerPacifist) is not my account. Go through my IP again. The account by name ( Nevaunderestimate) is my only account. Nevaunderestimate (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already used this {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}template to raise unblock request but has not received any response. Nevaunderestimate (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been falsely blocked accusing to be a Sock account. This account by name (User:WayfarerPacifist) is not my account. Go through my IP again. The account by name ( Nevaunderestimate) is my only account. @Daniel Case Nevaunderestimate (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we unblocked everyone blocked for sockpuppetry just because they said they weren't a sockpuppet and had no connection to that account, we might as well not have a ban on sockpuppetry at all because that's what everyone would say.

That said, I will grant that you can't be a sock of Wayfarer Pacifist, because that account is itself a sock of BangaloreNorth, as I indicated in the notice on your userpage. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you think my account is a Sock of BangaloreNorth? May I know how you came to this conclusion? If you are basing this on IP, then please check again. Blocking such activities is completely in your right but I should have the right to at least claim that I have been wrongly blocked for being a Sock when this is my only account. Is there a way i can verify the legitimacy of my claim? @Daniel Case Nevaunderestimate (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the checkuser right (and never have) so no, it is not based on your IP address (which, as would follow, I don't know). And it's a lot more sophisticated than that (which is all I can say publicly).

If " verify[ing] the legitimacy of my claim" means having someone do a checkuser on you ... while some other language Wikipedias allow that, the English Wikipedia does not. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the purpose of "Guide to appealing blocks"? This paragraph indicates that I should ask for assistance and the matter will be investigated ("Occasionally, a user will edit Wikipedia using the same IP address as another user who then becomes blocked. As a result, the first user will be shown a block message describing the other user's activity. If you receive a block notice about actions that you were not involved with, don't worry; stay calm. Simply ask for assistance as described below, and the matter will be investigated."). Is there no way for someone to investigate and unblock me? @Daniel Case Nevaunderestimate (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should be better worded. What it's referring to are situations in which an IP address is blocked, sometimes by itself or as a consequence of a user on it being blocked. Sometimes (less than we used to do) those IPs are "hardblocked" or "autoblocked", meaning that even other registered users who don't have IP block exemption are caught up in them. In that case we have a special unblock request template where the user who is blameless for the IP block can be released from it.

It has nothing to do with situations like this where we believe the same person is editing using different accounts. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It has nothing to do with situations like this where we believe the same person is editing using different accounts" - This doesn’t apply to me. I still don’t understand how you pinned other two accounts to me. This is my only account and how do I prove it? Getting blocked falsely for being sock and I can’t even claim for an investigation? How to go about this. @Daniel Case Nevaunderestimate (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... you want some evidence? I got your evidence right here, and since it's public I can share it. You made me go take a closer look.

First, there are the edits made by both you and Wayfarer to List of highest-grossing Telugu films, an article which gets about one edit a day. Yet despite otherwise divergent interests both of you focus on it, particularly making extensive edits to the box office receipts table in it.

And then, comparing both your contribution histories (which I sort of have to do by eyeball, as I cannot remember the tool that does this automatically), I note that in the days before Wayfarer was blocked, I cannot find any period where both of you were consistently active at the same time. Sure, there are clever little moves like this, which comes just five minutes before this ... but more than 40 minutes after Wayfarer's last edit, and in the middle of a 17-hour drought for you. There's also enough other gaps that would give you time to switch accounts (Or is it one you use at home, and another at work/school?). And enough periods where neither account edits to assume that you would "both" be asleep and living in the same time zone. (What was going on on March 26? You were pretty quiet that day compared to your usual pattern).

I think you get the point by this point. We don't need a matched IP to tell a sock. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I made extensive re-edits to Wiki articles because I am new to this. If you go through my edit history, the re-edits I did are mostly because I got the source structure wrong in the InfoBox or because I got the template wrong after I published it. But why would I even use two accounts when I already have one that I was using anyways to re-edit? I don’t understand the technicalities and assumptions you are mentioning to link my account to Wayfarer's. I previously got warning regarding vandalism and I acknowledged it because that was my mistake.

If you are basing this on coincidence of me being active when Wayfarer isn’t and you assuming that it was the period used to switch accounts. Also, let me tell you that, if I really had two accounts, then I don’t really need to log out of one to log in to another. You need more than just assumptions and coincidence here to accuse my account for being a sock. There are certain cycles where people's activities may coincide and especially in a populated country like India.

Also Wayfarer's average edits are greater and his interest in Wiki pages is very distinct to mine, I am only active in pages related to Telugu cinema. My edit history is very straight forward in adding or editing out information and providing sources.

Here, I literally spoke against Wayfarer's edit where he has been continuously disruptive editing with unreliable source. Wayfarer's claim was that BOI was reliable and my stand was against his claim. Below is the link to the page.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Is Box Office India reliable for South Indian movies?

@Daniel Case

Nevaunderestimate (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you aren't letting this drop, I will let you that I have found the "intertwined contributions" tool, and here's what it found when I compared the edits from both accounts in the month prior to Wayfarer's block.

TL;DR: My suspicions are only enhanced by this, and more or less confirmed by the arguments you marshal on your behalf, some of which actually do more to prove than refute the idea that the same person is controlling both accounts.

In particular, you assert that "There are certain cycles where people's activities may coincide and especially in a populated country like India." Well, uh, yes ... that was part of the point. There are significant periods when neither account is active; they seem to me to coincide on days when both accounts have edited with nighttime hours in India when you're probably sleeping. I think we can agree that reasonably speaking, that cannot rule out the possibility that the same person, living in the same part of the world, controls both accounts. And the times when one account makes edits during a large stretch when the other is doing it are long enough to support the idea of the same user behind them both, as I said above.
"Also, let me tell you that, if I really had two accounts, then I don't really need to log out of one to log in to another." A Suspiciously Specific Denial. I said nothing about you logging in and logging out, only that you were "switching" accounts. There are many ways one can "switch" accounts without logging in or out—the accounts can be on different machines at different locations (like, home, school or work), they can even be on different machines at the same location (or, one's on a phone/tablet and the other a desktop), or even different disk partitions on the same machine or even (I'm not sure if this would work, though) different browsers on the same machine.
The quality of your editing is not, and never has been, a defense to sockpuppetry. For anyone.
You lastly bring up a discussion where you and Wayfarer took different sides on an issue. Well, to me that comes under WP:ILLEGIT ("Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people."), even if it's not clearly enumerated there, as indeed that section is clear that it doesn't have to be. Many, many other editors have also tried to point to this as "proof" the two accounts were operated by two different people; you might be able to find them in the digital strata of "Users blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry" or whatever that category's called. Anyhow, that's purely a historical exercise; the point is that, like "my little brother did it!", we get that so often that we just don't accept it anymore as a defense.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God bless you. Nevaunderestimate (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]