Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! Loveall.human,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! —
Newslinger
talk
09:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Please read wp:brd and wp:ONUS, if you are undone, you are the one who is meant to make a case for why your edits should stand. There were a number of issues with your recent additions, to many to list in an edit summery. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
07:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Bold
Loveall.human ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
@ Callanecc: Account made no edits from mid-February and was reactivated only by 31 August.[4] - Almost 'profiling' here, as a human rights 'volunteer' am not committed here to edit Wiki every single day despite travel and vacations.
Similar obsession with adding "controversy" sections on articles,[5][6] - Adding 'controversy' title is given for the historically condemned event for open support of genocidal projects. Again, to note here is the complaint is wrongly linking to a different wiki page edit of a different time to a 'different person' as mine. Among million plus users, is usage of English word 'controversy' for title makes two users among millions as related?
and updating the section that he created on Sudarshan News which he created with his earlier sock.[7][8] Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) - This is the only wiki page in common that coincidentally in common. I have no idea about the previous user who edited it and technically you might figure out that this is a casual co-incidence.
His eagerness to add controversial content on BLPs then edit warring by solely relying on edit summaries,[9][10] - Adding historical events in right wing profiles only is termed here as 'eagerness to add controversial content'. As a beginner was undoing the section removal vandalism which is pointed here as 'edit warring'. Again, notice here, the second edit is wrongly associated with a 'different' account to a 'different' wiki page.
and marking of major addition of controversial content as "minor" while claiming his edits to be based on "facts" just indicates these all accounts belong to same socking master.[11][12] - Its true, due to difference in perspective of what is minor I had in the beginning was selecting minor which was corrected later from mentoring as you notice in my talk page. But again, here the complaint here has it bunched along with a different wiki page edit by a different user account.
In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides. Thanks. Loveall.human ( talk) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. If you make another block, please don't copy-paste things that other people said into it, and please don't overuse boldface. This just makes your request messy and difficult to read. Use a diff if you need to refer to something another editor said. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:39, 22 December 2020 (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.
Hello, Loveall.human. I just wanted to let you know that
Draft:Check1, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for
article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 ( talk) 05:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Loveall.human ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet. I have no idea about the other accounts.
I have put comments made at sockpuppet investigation for Speaktruth29 in bullet points and my responses to them below:
In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides. Thanks. Loveall.human ( talk) 13:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Based on your response above regarding the specific behavioural evidence in the SPI I am comfortable that, on balance, it is more likely that you are not Speaktruth29. Given that, the original reason for the block no longer applies an can be lifted. I would echo what GeneralNotability said below about other issues in your editing potentially leading to another block and being conscious of that in your further editing would be wise. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Loveall.human. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Check1".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@ GeneralNotability: Please can you or one of your colleagues take a look at the unblock request at User talk:Loveall.human#February 2021 unblock request.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Can I give some advice? Drop it and move on. I could explain why, but it would be a lot of work, and would serve no useful purpose. Nobody has entirely clean hands. And those who think their own hands are the most clean, are usually those who are least self-aware.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The other piece of advice is to try editing articles on issues that you do not feel strongly about. It is easier to be detached and edit from a neutral point of view about such issues. With time you will develop skills and editing behaviours that you need.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 200K |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(14d) |archive = User talk:User talk:Loveall.human/Archive %(counter)d }} {{archives}}
I suggest that you set up an archive bot for your talk page. To do that, just paste the above at the top of this page.
This will put old sections about your block in an archive. If anyone accuses you have been a sockpuppet, you can point them at the archive, and say that admins accepted that you were not a sock. But it means that you can move on.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, Jai (actor), and other pages. You need to read a few policies:-
Given you were already warned above to tread carefully, you should be indeed very careful. Capitals00 ( talk) 07:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi, hope you are doing good. I saw your comment in my report thread and I appreciate it because what you told is absolutely correct and can be easily validated if anyone checks their editing history. These editors seem to have a vendetta to avoid editors from expanding those articles. Anyway, I am messaging you here to request you if you can get time to implement the same format in List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism like you did in List of converts to Islam from Hinduism? Or you can point me to the steps to do it? Thanks again, -- Bringtar ( talk) 18:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I accidentally pinged you to my sandbox when I was saving a modification to my post I was abandoning. I'm not asking for your attention at my sandbox. I did intentionally ping you to ANI as I was replying to something you said. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I am sending this to everyone involved in the dispute. Can we please all stop adding or removing entries from these lists, unless there is an obvius BLP issue (which for most of them, there isn't). Please let editors who are neutral on the subjects look at them instead. I have made a start on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and have re-added some entries with sources, and not re-added them where sources are flimsy. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have filed a report against you at WP:ARE where you can comment. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 22:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! Loveall.human,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! —
Newslinger
talk
09:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Please read wp:brd and wp:ONUS, if you are undone, you are the one who is meant to make a case for why your edits should stand. There were a number of issues with your recent additions, to many to list in an edit summery. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
07:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Bold
Loveall.human ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
@ Callanecc: Account made no edits from mid-February and was reactivated only by 31 August.[4] - Almost 'profiling' here, as a human rights 'volunteer' am not committed here to edit Wiki every single day despite travel and vacations.
Similar obsession with adding "controversy" sections on articles,[5][6] - Adding 'controversy' title is given for the historically condemned event for open support of genocidal projects. Again, to note here is the complaint is wrongly linking to a different wiki page edit of a different time to a 'different person' as mine. Among million plus users, is usage of English word 'controversy' for title makes two users among millions as related?
and updating the section that he created on Sudarshan News which he created with his earlier sock.[7][8] Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) - This is the only wiki page in common that coincidentally in common. I have no idea about the previous user who edited it and technically you might figure out that this is a casual co-incidence.
His eagerness to add controversial content on BLPs then edit warring by solely relying on edit summaries,[9][10] - Adding historical events in right wing profiles only is termed here as 'eagerness to add controversial content'. As a beginner was undoing the section removal vandalism which is pointed here as 'edit warring'. Again, notice here, the second edit is wrongly associated with a 'different' account to a 'different' wiki page.
and marking of major addition of controversial content as "minor" while claiming his edits to be based on "facts" just indicates these all accounts belong to same socking master.[11][12] - Its true, due to difference in perspective of what is minor I had in the beginning was selecting minor which was corrected later from mentoring as you notice in my talk page. But again, here the complaint here has it bunched along with a different wiki page edit by a different user account.
In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides. Thanks. Loveall.human ( talk) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. If you make another block, please don't copy-paste things that other people said into it, and please don't overuse boldface. This just makes your request messy and difficult to read. Use a diff if you need to refer to something another editor said. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:39, 22 December 2020 (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.
Hello, Loveall.human. I just wanted to let you know that
Draft:Check1, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for
article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 ( talk) 05:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Loveall.human ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet. I have no idea about the other accounts.
I have put comments made at sockpuppet investigation for Speaktruth29 in bullet points and my responses to them below:
In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides. Thanks. Loveall.human ( talk) 13:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Based on your response above regarding the specific behavioural evidence in the SPI I am comfortable that, on balance, it is more likely that you are not Speaktruth29. Given that, the original reason for the block no longer applies an can be lifted. I would echo what GeneralNotability said below about other issues in your editing potentially leading to another block and being conscious of that in your further editing would be wise. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Loveall.human. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Check1".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@ GeneralNotability: Please can you or one of your colleagues take a look at the unblock request at User talk:Loveall.human#February 2021 unblock request.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Can I give some advice? Drop it and move on. I could explain why, but it would be a lot of work, and would serve no useful purpose. Nobody has entirely clean hands. And those who think their own hands are the most clean, are usually those who are least self-aware.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The other piece of advice is to try editing articles on issues that you do not feel strongly about. It is easier to be detached and edit from a neutral point of view about such issues. With time you will develop skills and editing behaviours that you need.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 200K |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(14d) |archive = User talk:User talk:Loveall.human/Archive %(counter)d }} {{archives}}
I suggest that you set up an archive bot for your talk page. To do that, just paste the above at the top of this page.
This will put old sections about your block in an archive. If anyone accuses you have been a sockpuppet, you can point them at the archive, and say that admins accepted that you were not a sock. But it means that you can move on.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, Jai (actor), and other pages. You need to read a few policies:-
Given you were already warned above to tread carefully, you should be indeed very careful. Capitals00 ( talk) 07:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi, hope you are doing good. I saw your comment in my report thread and I appreciate it because what you told is absolutely correct and can be easily validated if anyone checks their editing history. These editors seem to have a vendetta to avoid editors from expanding those articles. Anyway, I am messaging you here to request you if you can get time to implement the same format in List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism like you did in List of converts to Islam from Hinduism? Or you can point me to the steps to do it? Thanks again, -- Bringtar ( talk) 18:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I accidentally pinged you to my sandbox when I was saving a modification to my post I was abandoning. I'm not asking for your attention at my sandbox. I did intentionally ping you to ANI as I was replying to something you said. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I am sending this to everyone involved in the dispute. Can we please all stop adding or removing entries from these lists, unless there is an obvius BLP issue (which for most of them, there isn't). Please let editors who are neutral on the subjects look at them instead. I have made a start on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and have re-added some entries with sources, and not re-added them where sources are flimsy. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have filed a report against you at WP:ARE where you can comment. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 22:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)