User talk:VagaboundWind

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. 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. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Not sock puppet VagaboundWind (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence appears to suggest otherwise. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

May be a misunderstanding, i don't know what's happening. Why are you accusing me.? VagaboundWind (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To believe that, I would have to believe in a hell of a lot of remarkable coincidences, even just looking at the behavioural evidence. Add the fact that CheckUser says "sockpuppet" too, and it's beyond any reasonable doubt. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Ponyo:, You deleted the articles i created and images i uploaded. I know its bcoz of the block, But most of the artocles were reliably sourced and met with all the articles guidelines and were important articles (atleast some of them). So i request to recreate those articles and pictures. If this is not your concern ignore this message. VagaboundWind (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point you are missing, is that you, the editor behind the VagaboundWind and Wiki-senetor accounts, are not welcome to edit here anymore. You have alienated yourself from the community with persistently problematic, agenda-driven editing and a disregard for established Wikipedia policies, not to mention a disregard for basic social norms. Think of it like this: You're at a party, you keep irritating everybody, the host gets tired and sends you home. If you keep trying to sneak back in wearing different disguises, does that make you some kind a rebel? A champion for justice? Or does it make you an obsessive nut? Meditate on that for six months and with no more editing or sockpuppetry, and you can ask for the standard offer, and request that your FIRST indeffed account be unblocked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon for another edit. Let me ask who is the party host ?? You admins are only bouncers. Throwing away people in trouble without knowing the actual cause. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia anyone can edit with good faith. VagaboundWind (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia anyone can edit provided they collaborate and fit in with Wikipedia's standards. Having good faith is only one aspect of the matter. However, that is of little relevance when we are concerned with an editor who does not have good faith, but is persistently dishonest. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film articles

I request to restore the film article Ottal about an environmental film that I created. The film is very much important to Malayalam cinema as it received National Film Awards and now Kerala State Film Awards for Best film. --VagaboundWind (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - The individual behind this account is indefinitely unwelcome to edit at Wikipedia, because of persistent disregard for community editing standards, including edit-warring, POV editing, and sockpuppetry. Any articles created during the sockpuppetry have been deleted at the discretion of administrators. If this article is important, someone honest will re-create it in time. We have no deadline. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bhaskar the Rascal poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bhaskar the Rascal poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]