{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
DatGuy
Talk
Contribs
12:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)- This person Sangeetratnakar is trying to defame this musician U.Rajesh ( /info/en/?search=U._Rajesh) with reference to some data published on a tabloid which is against the biographies of living persons policy. These were some random allegations and did not have a bearing. Hence this should not be included on the musician's proile. This particular user Sangeetratnakar has to be barred from making further edits as we don't know his motives. Please remove the controversy section and help maintain compliance to the policy. 94.200.158.130 ( talk) 13:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
94.200.158.130 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This person Sangeetratnakar is trying to defame this musician U.Rajesh ( /info/en/?search=U._Rajesh) with reference to some data published on a tabloid which is against the biographies of living persons policy. These were some random allegations and did not have a bearing. Hence this should not be included on the musician's proile. This particular user Sangeetratnakar has to be barred from making further edits as we don't know his motives. Please remove the controversy section and help maintain compliance to the policy. 94.200.158.130
Decline reason:
You may not make legal threats on Wikipedia. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:05, 13 April 2023 (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.
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... Hi, Appreciate if you could help removing the Controversy section from the [ [1]]
This is included with reference to some articles in tabloids much against the wiki policy for Biographies of living persons. There is no evidence or claim by anyone on such remarks and this is misleading people to believe in false information. Further please lock the profile to avoid including such articles. In spite of our efforts in removing it manually, this is being restored by someone with wrong intentions. 94.200.158.130 ( talk) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- The section is properly sourced and will not be removed, as you have already been told on the
article's talk page.
Sario528 (
talk)
11:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sir, please read those articles, those were only claims but not real. How can this information be classified as properly sourced? If someone gets accused can that be included even if its not proven. There will be many such things against celebrities. Please read those articles and then decide.
94.200.158.130 (
talk)
12:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, accusations sourced to reliable sources can be included even if they are not proven in court. In fact, the vast majority of content in Wikipedia articles does not meet the threshold of "proven in a court of law", because that defeat the purpose of the platform.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
10:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- So could you please help remove controversy section and help maintain compliance to the policy 94.200.158.130 ( talk) 09:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, accusations sourced to reliable sources can be included even if they are not proven in court. In fact, the vast majority of content in Wikipedia articles does not meet the threshold of "proven in a court of law", because that defeat the purpose of the platform.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
10:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sir, please read those articles, those were only claims but not real. How can this information be classified as properly sourced? If someone gets accused can that be included even if its not proven. There will be many such things against celebrities. Please read those articles and then decide.
94.200.158.130 (
talk)
12:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
DatGuy
Talk
Contribs
12:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)- This person Sangeetratnakar is trying to defame this musician U.Rajesh ( /info/en/?search=U._Rajesh) with reference to some data published on a tabloid which is against the biographies of living persons policy. These were some random allegations and did not have a bearing. Hence this should not be included on the musician's proile. This particular user Sangeetratnakar has to be barred from making further edits as we don't know his motives. Please remove the controversy section and help maintain compliance to the policy. 94.200.158.130 ( talk) 13:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
94.200.158.130 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This person Sangeetratnakar is trying to defame this musician U.Rajesh ( /info/en/?search=U._Rajesh) with reference to some data published on a tabloid which is against the biographies of living persons policy. These were some random allegations and did not have a bearing. Hence this should not be included on the musician's proile. This particular user Sangeetratnakar has to be barred from making further edits as we don't know his motives. Please remove the controversy section and help maintain compliance to the policy. 94.200.158.130
Decline reason:
You may not make legal threats on Wikipedia. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:05, 13 April 2023 (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.
|
| This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... Hi, Appreciate if you could help removing the Controversy section from the [ [1]]
This is included with reference to some articles in tabloids much against the wiki policy for Biographies of living persons. There is no evidence or claim by anyone on such remarks and this is misleading people to believe in false information. Further please lock the profile to avoid including such articles. In spite of our efforts in removing it manually, this is being restored by someone with wrong intentions. 94.200.158.130 ( talk) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- The section is properly sourced and will not be removed, as you have already been told on the
article's talk page.
Sario528 (
talk)
11:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sir, please read those articles, those were only claims but not real. How can this information be classified as properly sourced? If someone gets accused can that be included even if its not proven. There will be many such things against celebrities. Please read those articles and then decide.
94.200.158.130 (
talk)
12:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, accusations sourced to reliable sources can be included even if they are not proven in court. In fact, the vast majority of content in Wikipedia articles does not meet the threshold of "proven in a court of law", because that defeat the purpose of the platform.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
10:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- So could you please help remove controversy section and help maintain compliance to the policy 94.200.158.130 ( talk) 09:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, accusations sourced to reliable sources can be included even if they are not proven in court. In fact, the vast majority of content in Wikipedia articles does not meet the threshold of "proven in a court of law", because that defeat the purpose of the platform.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
10:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sir, please read those articles, those were only claims but not real. How can this information be classified as properly sourced? If someone gets accused can that be included even if its not proven. There will be many such things against celebrities. Please read those articles and then decide.
94.200.158.130 (
talk)
12:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
|
| This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |