User talk:Chandra Shekher Mishra

Chandra Shekher Mishra, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Chandra Shekher Mishra! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Pearl Jam, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Pearl Jam. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. regentspark (comment) 14:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Petr Čech, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wikipedia is user-generated and cannot be used as a source, also see WP:Circular Iggy (Swan) 16:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the next time you add the "greatest band" stuff to any article related to Pearl Jam, you will be blocked. --regentspark (comment) 12:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your email to me (full quote: I have not done so recently. The last time i did it was 3 or 4 days ago. So just be in you limit and don't bark unless you have got a specific reason. Moreover, Check immediately what vandalism means because i don't think you have any knowledge about that.), you did add "greatest rock band" to the Eddie Vedder article this morning [1]. Please also note that I haven't labeled your edits "vandalism". Best. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Čech

Please note messages on my talk page and the article talk page. In future, if you could keep all of your messages in the same thread, rather than adding a new section every time, that'd be great. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. regentspark (comment) 14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've blocked you for one week because of the contents of your latest email. In that email, you also state that i will keep doing my edits because they are no wrong and they are justified. Please note that if, on your return, you do just that then you will be blocked again. Perhaps indefinitely. Best. --regentspark (comment) 14:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal request for my block

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for 1 week by a user named RegentsPark for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hrs. Im totally innocent in this matter. According to the terms and conditions, a user can not revert any edit on the page because of opinion clash and the same has been done to me. I added a content on Pearl jam's page suggesting them to be one of the greatest of all timr and backed it up with reference conataining a veteran musician's (Corey taylor) same verdict on the band from a renowned music streaming platform TIDAL. But the user mentioned above, reverted it saying that the information wasn't constructive. I read about it on wikipedia and it was clearly written that edits which add a sense of meaning to an article should not be reverted. I told this to him and re done my edit and this way he continuously reverted my edits more than 3 times in less than 24hrs which is not allowed over here. Since im new i didnt knew this and didnt took any step. The user then falsely acclaimed me of having reverted edits and sent me a message in a rude manner warning me to be blocked and forced me to get frustated because mine edits were a result of a long hard work. In anger, i took a wrong step of getting a bit rude(though i didn't use any vulgar language). He took the advantage and blocked me for a straight one week which is too much even if i was the faulter. Im totally innocent and Regents Park is an hater of the band who only because of his opinion has took the whole control over the Pearl Jam page and is now vandalisingthings over there. So its a kind request to please look out the matter, uplifting my block and warning him not to revert any changes which are backed by reliable references. Chandra Shekher Mishra (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC) A honest wikipedian - Chandra Shekher Mishra[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not appear to address the reason for your block, as described by regentspark above. Content disputes are simply not resolved by one party insiting that "i will keep doing my edits because they are no wrong and they are justified". And attacking the blocking admin in your unblock request really doesn't help either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2018 (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.

Your private email to me

Thank you for your personal email to me. At the Teahouse we like to welcome new editors and invite them to seek help from us if the encounter difficulties editing Wikipedia. I'm replying here as I don't think a personal/private email reply is appropriate on this occasion. We only use that form of communication on rare situations where privacy is needed. Everything else is done in an open snd transparent environment here.

I do appreciate your concerns over your recent block, which appears to be because of angry or inappropriate content you emailed privately to another editor who blocked you, both for that and your earlier edit warring.

I don't know the content of that message (which appears to be the main reason for your block). I should observe that your own private email to me was perfectly polite.

I've looked at your edits to the article on Pearl Jam - and I'm afraid I agree completely with the rationale for their removal by RegentsPark. This has been explained clearly in the talk page of the article itself. You must remember this is an encyclopaedia with worldwide viewers and has to have a neutral tone in everything said here. You were actually quite wrong drawing the conclusion that many people said that they're the world's greatest rock band when the reality is that one superfan is cited as saying this. Fans would, wouldnt they? It was reverted as it is a wholly unacceptable edit which you repeatedly inserted, and you need to appreciate why this was unacceptable if you want to continue editing here once your block expires. Had a famous, uninvolved person made that remark, it might have been acceptable to name them, and then quote them. But what you did was to extrapolate one person's opinion into a broad statement of fact, and to put it right in the top part of the article. This was not ok, and goes against all of our attempts to be neutral and factual. In future you must not revert changes without discussing them with other editors - and not by private email. If someone reverts your edits don't just repeat them; consider there must be a good reason and if you can't understand it, contact him/her to discuss it with them before continuing. This is the way we collaborate on Wikipedia.

Just to clarify: I dont know the admin named Regents Park, nor have any interest in rock music articles. I'm simply responding by giving this feedback as a totally independent person, named by HostBot in a Teahouse welcome message, who is keen to help and advise new editors like yourself. My advice is simply to wait out your block, and in future interact respectfully and politely with the other editors at all times. Starting out editing here can be a rocky journey for some. The Teahouse is here to help users to edit; it's not to intervene in disputes which have been handled fairly, and with oversight by other admins. Regards fom the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Shekher Mishra, I have just reverted your re-addition to Petr Čech which added a claim that he "has been considered to be one of the greatest, most consistent, and most respected goalkeepers of his generation". You provided 3 citations: One was simply to his career stats, one was to an opinion by Gianluigi Buffon who only said of Čech "Of course when I talk about goalkeepers I think of Iker Casillas, Petr Cech, Oliver Kahn and others so you have to evaluate many elements and not just look at this moment in time" (in an editorial that actually opined that Buffon is "one of the finest goalkeepers of his generation", not Čech). The third is to a dead link, but it apparently had the title "Cech is one of the greatest goalkeepers ever, says Wenger", and again that is just one person's opinion and comes nowhere near verifying the assertion you are trying to support with it. You absolutely must stop adding these unsupported claims based on individual fan praise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I also note that you were edit warring extensively on that one, from your account and logged out as an IP editor. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the claim that Pearl Jam are "considered to be one of the biggest and best rock bands of all time" from Jeff Ament, Stone Gossard and Mike McCready, again sourced only to the opinion of Corey Taylor of Slipknot. It was was added by an IP editor in these cases, but that was clearly you, and you also edited the claims from this account. I have also removed excessive praise added to Zack de la Rocha based on the opinion of one single publication (loudwire.com), as being a violation of WP:UNDUE. If you continue with any of this when your current block expires, your next block is likely to be indefinite. In fact, after seeing the extent of your persistence and edit warring, your failure to cooperate with other editors, and your attacks on those who disagree with you, I was temped to increase your block to indefinite right now. I'm not going to, though, as you are a new editor and I want to give you every chance to listen to what you are being told and to edit within Wikipedia policy - but bear in mind that there are plenty of admins here who are far stricter than me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making further personal attacks towards other editors via email. In addition, your talk page and email privileges have been revoked. WP:UTRS is still open to you if you wish to appeal this block, but anything close to the same kind of abuse you sent me by email (in which you attacked everyone who opposed your additions) will lose you access to that too. If any admin should consider a UTRS unblock request, please contact me for a copy of the abusive email first so that you can see what we are dealing with. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

For the record, block evasion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion 23 September 2018. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
More block evasion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion, 25 Oct 2018 - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive block evasion, 26 Oct 2018. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive block evasion on 8 Nov 2018, and more abusive block evasion, on 10 Nov 2018 - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion on 13 Nov 2018 - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Chandra Shekher Mishra (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23238 was submitted on Nov 13, 2018 08:31:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the abuse I am continuing to receive from this editor, I deem him to have forgone any rights to privacy I would usually accord to people who email me. The following is the unedited text of an email he sent to me on 16 Sep 2018, and for which I imposed the indef block...
"Fuck you motherfucker and all who are continously reverting my edits . Edits that I did were done so because there are millions of wiki's where similar edits have been made , praising great people for the job they did and proving it with a citation . But here , Its not about how great a person , here its about who is editing this . All you cunt editors are simply suppressing new editors . All the edits I did in Petr cech , Pearl Jam , Eddie Vedder , Zack de la rocha were reverted by Egoistic Cunts , not because it was against the rule book , but because its butthurting your arses . All my edits were legit and cited fron reliable source and legendary people , but I have been endlessly cheated . I don't care much anyways , motherfuckers , block me indefinitely after this . But the fact is YOU BUNCH OF CHUCKLEHEADED EDITORS are editing things according to Your opinion, not what people think. Fuck you cunts , and put this in your arse , your reverts won't revert the legacy of these legends in people's mind . GFY !"

Anyone ever considering an unblock should take this into consideration. I mean, all the "motherfucker", "Egoistic Cunts", "Fuck you cunts , and put this in your arse", etc is run of the mill for admins dealing with people like this, but I draw the line at being called "CHUCKLEHEADED". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After this further block evasion I have semi-protected this talk page. The email reproduced above is exactly what he sent to me, which can be confirmed by anyone who has the rights to view messages sent through the Wikipedia email system - I don't know who has those rights, but I'm sure any reviewer can identify the appropriate functionary if they think it necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]