User talk:SunnyKambojLive

Welcome!

Hello, SunnyKambojLive, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion templates

Please note, we do not use conversion templates in the infoboxes of Indian films, per WP:ICTF consensus - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Punjabi films

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. نعم البدل (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May have been involved? lol. U only involved me there. And, 2 admins have already cleared your confusion there. Now, just try to understand and stop wasting precious time of both of us. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, SunnyKambojLive, you need to stop operating as if you have a good understanding of policies and guidelines and best practices, when it's clear that you don't. Everyone has an equal stake in editing anything. A creator of a page doesn't get special allowances, nor does an editor by virtue of their ethno-national orientation relative to a given page. When you falsely accuse an editor of vandalism in the course of a content dispute, as you did here — that counts as a personal attack, which is sanctionable. Please review WP:NOTVANDALISM. And when you double down on that, as you did here, stating (in part): Kindly check the meaning of vandalism on wikipedia — that just comes across as not serious.

So please take a step back and try not being so reflexively defensive. Try to observe the ethos of WP:ONUS, as a recommendation that the person introducing a change take the initiative toward (dispassionately) building WP:CONSENSUS for it whenever it's contested, rather than resorting to brute force WP:EDITWARRING.

Above all else, be collegial, act professionally in a manner befitting a collaborative project. And avoid even a hint of WP:OWNERSHIP. Your expertise is welcomed as a Punjabi (though this is a broader point about all countries and fields), but don't expect special breaks, stakes or sway for it for Punjabi-related pages. You won't get it. I'm being blunt with because you're teetering on the edge right now. So a major course correction is necessary. Otherwise, I'm sorry to say, but your time here is going to be challenging, if not brief. Good luck and thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 22:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ei_C, thank a lot for your kind words. I know these are for my benefit only. And, from everything u have said, it seems you know the whole situation and the page that is being discussed.

The problem I was facing is that I didn't know how to add diffs. I am trying to learn it and give a proof of why I said it to be an act of Vandalism. I had no intention of falsely accusing anyone. Though I felt like a victim of false accusations by a couple of users.

I thought we have freedom of speech, on Wikipedia. But whenever I try to say anything, other users start cornering me. At least, that what I felt. That's why I am learning how to add diffs and give a clarification on false accusations being on me. Just because I am afraid an Admin will block me just because of the false accusations. But please suggest me if I should give clarification with Proofs or not? Or just step back and remain silent?

Also, I never intend to own any page. I know it's not possible on Wikipedia. Actually, I was writing the clarification on the page being discussed before I got your message. Just suggest me the best. I will be very thankful. And, I already am.

Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. The documentation is at WP:DIFF. But I looked at those edits and it's not vandalism. Again, please review WP:NOTVANDALISM to understand why that is. If you take it slow and closely review all the links I attached for you above, then you'll be in a much better position to navigate this dispute, specifically, and this website, in general.

As for freedom of speech, that's limited to public venues subject to the laws governing the country you're in. But there's WP:NOTFREESPEECH on Wikipedia. It's a private website with it's own set of rules. El_C 23:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood why it was not Vandalism. I am reviewing all the links and will proceed accordingly.

Thanks a lot. :) SunnyKambojLive (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I think the other thread is closed. So, I am writing here.

User:Swarm, User:Woodroar, User:EI_C please read this. I am giving my clarification.

A) User:نعم البدل, when I was talking about false accusations, it was not meant for you. I was talking about User:Nfitz, and I will explain why in the following.

B) About Vandalism - I thought Disruptive editing is Vandalism as I read it on "Vandalism on Wikipedia" article on Wikipedia. Though User:EI_C guided me and I got to know that it's not Vandalism.

When you (User:نعم البدل) started adding a Pakistani Punjabi film on the list which till then (and before any discussion started) only contained Indian Punjabi films, I found it disruptive and undid it. But you undid my revision 2-3 times in just few minutes.

(https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1119779526&oldid=1119651034,

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1119995937&oldid=1119779526,

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1119997969&oldid=1119997340,

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1120003622&oldid=1119997969)

Then, I thought it to be Vandalism and left you a message, (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%84&diff=1120065841&oldid=1120005093). Now that I have learnt that this was not Vandalism, so I apologize from you (User:نعم البدل).

Then, you found this to be threatening. (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%84&diff=1120066011&oldid=1120065841). But it is a standard Wikipedia message and not something I wrote from my side. How that can be threatening? So, I asked you to search the meaning of Vandalism on Wikipedia. (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%84&diff=1120190123&oldid=1120066011) Regarding which, I had wrong information or let's say, incomplete information. But that was not entirely my fault. As a Wikipedia article said so.

C) Now, User:Nfitz took advantage of this situation and falsely accused me of being unnecessarily hostile and condescending (ref. above in this same discussion. I just asked User:نعم البدل to check the meaning for Wikipedia Vandalism. How this can be hostile and condescending? We also know, it's not. For this, User:Nfitz should apologize from me.

Now, let me give everyone the proof, why User:Nfitz did this. He tried to make few changes on the page that is being discussed.

(https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1120201100&oldid=1120196774)

According to him, we can't use the word Overseas because - "one doesn't have to cross seas to reach many of these countries".

I found this to be funny. So, I reverted and replied

(https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1120204304&oldid=1120201100)

He just could not digest it and came to this discussion and made false accusations on me, that could have led to me blocking from editing, according to User:Swarm.

Now tell me everyone, who is the victim here?

D) User:Nfitz is still not stopping as you can read his further comments and the changes he is making on the page being discussed. Let me clear further, I did not accused him of Vandalism. I just referred him by mistake though I intended to write User:نعم البدل

For which, I already apologized to User:نعم البدل

I am sorry to write User:Nfitz by mistake. Now, we all have to see if User:Nfitz is mature enough of apologizing from me or not? For false accusations. Doesn't he qualify to be blocked after all this and wasting everyone's precious time especially mine? (just for fun or out of frustration)

E) Coming back to User:نعم البدل

There is not an issue of WP:Ownership at all. Just because I am the major contributor of the said page, it does not mean I intend to own it. It's not possible on Wikipedia. From my clarification, you can easily judge my intentions.

And, talking about the examples I gave regarding Bengali and English language are still relevant for me. We can have different opinions on it. Talking about separating the Indian Punjabi and Pakistani Punjabi films, discussion is still ON. And, I didn't think to add any column because you did not suggested earlier. Now that you have suggested, I will think about it.

F) Talking about the page being discussed, I already mentioned my times that List of highest-grossing Punjabi films is a sub-article of List of highest-grossing Indian films and adding Pakistani Punjabi movies to it will be illogical.

G) In last, I want to talk about feeling getting cornered or a case of partiality. When User:SilverserenC used such disrespectful language and strong words and wrote following.

"Trying to limit the list to only Indian Punjabi films seems both dumb and way over-specialization that isn't needed for such a list. And, since the sources do explicitly call the Pakistani films "Punjabi", then that means they fall under what this list article is about. Also, this conflict makes me wonder if this would fall under the India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions. Since this seems to be a really stupid anti-Pakistan action".

Nobody said anything to him or asked him to tone down. But when I replied to him with the following:-

"Such comment without having your facts checks, is dumb actually. Kindly read my upper comment to understand why this list can't include films from Pakistan. And, this is not a new debate. It has always been the case. Whenever page protection is removed, such users arise. Your use of word "anti-Pakistan" is enough to understand your mind set, without clearly seeing the logic".

After this, User:Swarm asked me to tone it down and even threaten me to block. I want to know the reason of this partiality.

Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SunnyKambojLive, your recent posts at the article talkpage indicate a sense of frustration (I don't know why people are not understanding this simple logic. etc). As has been said earlier, maintaining calm professionalism is important in discussions where participants have differing viewpoints. I'd suggest slowing down or even taking a break if you feel frustrated; its more productive and healthier. Also note my reply with regards to potential canvassing. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to your message on my talkpage to keep discussion in one place) I had glanced through your post above and understand why you feel that some of the comments at ANI, suggesting anti-Pakistani bias, were unmerited. I am happy to acknowledge that. But the point of ANI etc is not to to mete out punishment or justice but rather to enable encyclopedia-building which is the raison d'etre for all of us being here. Any sanction imposed are just a means towards that end and it is usually preferable to prevent disruption before it occurs/escalates rather than issue blocks after the facts. My aim in closing the ANI thread was to try to get the editors to move on from past conduct issues and the bad blood that had been generated.

As for admin partiality: You may not realize it yet, but User:El C's polite but plainspoken messages above really prevented you from walking into a sanction. And my previous note above was again primarily intended to prevent you from making frustrated outbursts or canvassing errors that would necessitate a page or topic ban. So again, I'd urge you to not hold grudges about past conduct but simply focus on the content and sources issue; or, even take a few days break from the Punjabi film list page so that you can look at it with fresh eyes and perspective. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi (Panjabi) films

I have restored List of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi (Panjabi) films to a redirect. First, it was an unattributed copy-paste of an article, which is a copyright violation. See WP:COPYWITHIN. But second, it was an alternate article created solely to bypass consensus, which we do not allow on Wikipedia. See WP:POVFORK. I'm disappointed that you started working on that alternate article after I'd pointed you to our POVFORK policy. I strongly urge you to take a step back and read through our policies and guidelines to get an understanding about what we're doing here on Wikipedia. My recommendation is to read through WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and then WP:NOT and WP:CON. They provide the foundation for what we include on Wikipedia and why, what we don't include on Wikipedia, and our behavioral norms for developing a consensus. You should also read through the policies and guidelines that others have linked, if you haven't already. Woodroar (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I created that article before you pointed to POVFORK Policy. So, there is no reason for disappointment. You can check timelines. And, I did that to find solution. Others users were also suggesting same to form a different article regarding Pakistani Punjabi films. If we can't do it, I am stepping back.

Also, I just checked your message of pointing towards any such policy. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks and discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing List of highest-grossing Punjabi films and List of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi (Panjabi) films for disruptive editing. Even after multiple warnings; even after detailed guidance; even after a commitment to study policy and moderate conduct — disruption ensues. WP:EDITWARRING a major change, still; WP:BLUDGEON discussions with comments whose length basically amounts to a filibuster; WP:ASPERSIONS, still making unfounded accusations without evidence. This is a last chance. You may still edit the article talk page/s, but any further issues there are likely to see you either restricted from the entire website, or a topic ban from the India-Pakistan-Afdganistan topic area (if you're even up for it), in part or in full. Please tread lightly, be concise, and again, moderate your conduct overall as well as study up on policy and on best practices. Hope you take this final opportunity, and hope that you take it to heart. Good luck.

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 ~~~~}}. El_C 19:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

To unblock from editing List of highest-grossing Punjabi films and List of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi (Panjabi) films

Hello User:El C, please note that I did not intent any WP:EDITWARRING since the discussion is going on about the said page - List of highest-grossing Punjabi films. I have not violated three-revert rule [1]. Though I did create a separate page - List of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi (Panjabi) films before getting information from User:Woodroar on why I can't do it. Once he reverted the change and I read information given by him, I said that I am STEPPING BACK from creating any new article regarding the same. [2]

Talking about WP:BLUDGEON, I told you that I am learning diffs. and studying the suggested policies, so that I can give my clarification. Then, you helped me and gave me a go ahead [3]. Till the time I wrote my clarification (with proofs and all diff links attached), the ANI thread was closed. So, I had to unwillingly write my clarification on my talk page. [4]. I did not have another option. It was a long comment as I had to address many people and various accusations on me. I did not know that this will amount to WP:BLUDGEON. I am sorry for my lack of knowledge as I am a basic editor who takes care of only a few articles.

And, I think there is some confusion regarding WP:ASPERSIONS? I addressed every single accusation with evidence in form of diffs. in my long comment/clarification. That's the reason it took me long time to write. [5] I was told by different users on the same topic that adding diffs is the way to address evidence. I did the same. Then, User:Abecedare checked the same accusations and acknowledged it (the partiality thing I was referring to from one of the admin). User:Abecedare suggested me to focus on the content and sources issue; or, even take a few days break from the Punjabi film list page so that I can look at it with fresh eyes and perspective. And, I AM READY TO DO IT. In Past also, I usually update that page once in a week or two-week time.

I never said that you (User:El C) were partial. You were very helpful.

Kindly unblock me. I will not do any further discussion regarding the topic that was being discussed. I will go back to updating the collections that I used to do after a week or 2 week time. And, if others think that Pakistani Punjabi films should be added to the list, let them add. You guys decide on that.

Thanks & Regards,

Sunny Kamboj

SunnyKambojLive (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request not show you understand why you are blocked, or the severity of your failings here. This incredibly lenient block is the bare minimum at this point, and you are actually even still allowed to participate in the dispute. Frankly you are being cut a huge break. You are lucky not to be fully blocked for a lengthy period for your ownership behavior. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:46, 7 November 2022 (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.

SunnyKambojLive, had you asked, I'd have told you that using WP:3RR to justify making that major change, again, would count as ruleslawyering (WP:WIKILAWYER). I suspect you aren't reading the provided documentation carefully. Like, with this unblock request, did you review the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks document closely, as the block message suggests?

So, sorry, but it's time for you to take that personal responsibility. I've given you more leniency than most admins would have, so now you gotta do the work in a serious way — a steep learning curve, I know, but there's no other choice now if you are to continue editing. Editing this subject at least. You could always move on to something else, and if it's unproblematic, then, you're okay.

But if you do wish to press on with this, either you step up, or it's probably not gonna work out. Again, try to absorb what I'm telling you here and apply it in practice fully. You can still do it. El_C 23:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C, please don't misunderstand me, I did not justify the major change with WP:3RR, if it sounded like that. I am trying my best to read all the documentations. I also reviewed Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. But as you said, it is a steep learning curve, may be I need more time to fully understand it and the other documentations as well. After which, I will fully apply it in practice. I also request you that these things are difficult and time consuming for me as per my occupation. Kindly notice if I will be doing good from now, regarding all the reasons for which I have been blocked. And, if u find it satisfying, I will seek your help in the unblock process. Thanks ...

I'm good with that. But I'd also advise you to do something on Wikipedia unrelated to this subject. You still haven't found your footing yet, which I think you acknowledge, so it's best to sail calmer waters until you do. In those areas, you'd be much less likely to step over the line. Which, again, this time, will carry more severe consequences. So please take the time.

Yes, the learning curve is steep, for many reasons, but as a consequence, it also helps the English Wikipedia community retain its independence and cohesion. Many editors start out as a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account but later branch out. You started editing this 'purpose' all the way back in 2018, so maybe it's time to branch out. So, I encourage you to do that.

And if not, well, it's allowed, but it also bears more scrutiny and challenges. I've re-opened the ANI thread, but if there isn't any further issues for a few days, I'll archive it at that time. Good luck once again. El_C 00:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With great power comes great responsibility. Just because you User:Swarm are an admin, you should not abuse your power by trying to instigate or use a threatening tone, after everything has cooled down. I can't give justifications every other day. I have other things too to do in my life. Just because I am a major contributor to a page does not make me the owner of it. I have said this all the time. I can't be sorry for my 5 years contribution to something. It takes a lot of time, research and hard work out of my busy schedule to put data here. Wikipedia is for everyone. Everybody has equal rights to edit or participate in a debate/dispute. I earned it with logical reasons. Kindly let me take my time and understand the various policies. Now, you will say I have made another mistake. You are just instigating so that I can make another mistake and you get your chance to get me banned, as you have just threatened.

But, You have still not given any clarification on your support of the 'anti-pakistan' comment against me. just because I am an Indian? I am a Punjabi first. And Punjab belongs to both India and Pakistan. We love each other. You did not even give the other user "SilverSerenC" any sort of warning. That still remains the reason why I doubted this as a case of partiality. You asked me then to tone it down but have you cared to see your tone? Admin should also be answerable and not behave like a dictator or owner of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has not given admins any right to openly threaten someone. And when someone replies back, he gets another threat of ban etc. What's this behaviour? Else what remains the use of Wikipedia?

I request other admins User:El C, User:Woodroar and User:Abecedare as well to intervene. Please put an end to this bullying. I am really fed up with this everyday debate. Else, Wikipedia will lose another editor, irrespective of the full ban threats. I mean who will want to dedicate his time to something, from where he gets regular threats? And, why is it only me being harassed? Just because I am giving my point of view or was regularly editing an article that caters to 102 million Punjabi speakers worldwide?

I am just a normal administrator in this scenario and I am just explaining to you what the routine sanctions would be in this situation. The other admins are bending over backwards to try to be lenient and focus on the content dispute and they have explained this to you. If you want to see what we look for in an unblock request, see WP:GAB. However, victimizing yourself further is not going to be the solution. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not an admin. I'm just an experienced editor who watches ANI. Woodroar (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swarm I only said what I felt. Your choice of words in your decline reason hurted my feelings. If your intentions are really good, please give me sometime to learn the policies. I will get back to the unblock request whenever I feel capable to request for it. May be after a month or two or more time. Also, I have listened/read and agreed to every decision that other admins have made. And requested time from them too. I need a break. I request you to just leave me alone for some time.

User:Woodroar Okay ... My mistake. A misundestanding. Cheers ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I only said what I felt." - my advice (based on mistaking that mistake more than once) would be to not say what you feel. Think of it more as a legal process - where the lawyers argue with each other all day - and then go out for a drink together when it's done. Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nfitz Same applies to you. You have still not made an apology regarding false accusations on me of being "hostile and condescending". Evidence I have already given in my long comment/clarification. You only started framing me.

So, just do what is remaining on your part. An apology. And stop giving advice while adding fuel to fire with another baseless accusation of (mistaking that mistake more than once). That's just playing with words. LEAVE ME ALONE. You have already succeeded in putting a ban on me regarding the article in question. Now just go and do some constructive editing there. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, what you mean by "but don't get slipped a mickey!" (see his edit summary) [6]. This is another baseless accusation, hence personal attack. I hope admins are looking into matter and will take proper action on him. He is just trying to be oversmart and thinks he can get away with anything. I hope not this time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnyKambojLive (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see this pattern? Every bit of good faith feedback you’re receiving you’re ignoring and continuing to complain about other people. I’m not trying to be mean to you or hurt your feelings, I’m simply being honest and direct, because people have tried being nice and supportive and forgiving and it did not work, that is why we’re here. You are in this situation because of your actions in the content space, nothing more. The more defensive and argumentative you are, the less likely it is that your block will be lifted. Again, not being mean, just hoping I can get through to you with direct honestly about Wikipedia’s unblocking requirements. Even if we let this drop now, your stubborn refusal to accept criticism is only going to make it worse for yourself in the future. I have no interest in worrying about you, if you don’t want to listen it doesn’t affect me either way. None of this is personal, but Wikipedia is not therapy. It is stressful like this and editors are expected to be able to handle it. You know? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ... I will give a thought to everything you and other admins have suggested ... Thanks a lot for the feedback.

Let's give this a break. So that I can come back after a month or two with a fresh perspective. Changing perspective and learning things take time. And I need that. Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best approach - though you remain able to edit any other article here - such as Punjabi cinema; and your work, particularly on the listing article, has made Wikipedia better. I know this can be upsetting and difficult ... but it happens to many of us ... check out MY block log! As for mickey ... it was a continuation of what I thought was a friendly comment but off-topic in the post ... "then go out for a drink together when it's done, but don't get slipped a Mickey". As in a Mickey Finn; it was a friendly movie joke - referring to The Maltese Falcon (1931 film). Perhaps you were thinking of Taking the Mickey - which is completely unrelated and more recent. I'm sorry if that created confusion - I hadn't pondered the latter meaning. Nfitz (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought of the latter meaning. Thanks for clearing the confusion. Cheers ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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. 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 ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This block period of mine is over but I am still not able to edit anything on Wikipedia due to blocked I.P address. Kindly help. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We can't help you unless you tell us your IP address, since as you note this block is expired. If you don't want to post your IP address publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide it privately. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2022 (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.

User:331dot Ok, thanks for the great suggestion.

User:331dot Hi! I have made the request/appeal using WP:UTRS. Can u please check it? Thanks ...

Dear User:Izno, Hi!

The period of the block by you is over but I am still not able to edit anything on Wikipedia due to blocked I.P address or addresses.

As User:331dot suggested, I tried to make the appeal using WP:UTRS but there, I am getting the response that they are not able to locate my block.

Kindly unblock my I.P address(es). You may have those IPs as you applied this block. Kindly help.

Thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view your UTRS request(not sure why) but maybe you are being affected by a different block. The block on this account is gone and shouldn't be affecting you. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:331dot, even I can't understand what is the problem with UTRS but I am affected by this block only by User:Izno, as I am getting warning messages regarding this only. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the autoblock from your CU-blocked sock account. Please attempt to edit another page to verify that was what was causing the issue. Izno (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. Thank you User:Izno. Actually, the other account is not actually a sock. It is only my second account and I did productive and constructive editing from it.

I don't know how and if I am able to recover it?

Also, Thank you User:331dot for your kind help.

Cheers ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You used the UCoE Freaks account as a sockpuppet to evade your partial block that was placed by @El C regarding the List of highest-grossing Punjabi films and List of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi (Panjabi) films pages, which I have now re-instituted. So no, it was not an account used for constructive editing.

Don't do that again. One account and one account only, and respect the restrictions that you have had placed on this account. Izno (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Izno Yes, and I have already faced consequences for that. Though, it was truly meant for productive editing. You can even check my edit history. Still, I now understand that I can't use two accounts.

And, you could have spared me from re-institution. It would have saved me so much time. Can you please re-consider it? Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only reason the partial block was lifted is because the software cannot currently handle multiple different kinds of blocks for different lengths of time. That is why I re-instituted it. If you wish to appeal your partial block, you may use the normal {{unblock}} appeal process. If you do so, please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before filing the appeal. Izno (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ... Thanks User:Izno ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I want to request that the partial block is no longer necessary. I was blocked from this article for disruptive editing, which I did by mistake due to the lack of knowledge about the policies and I got multiple warnings for it as it took me time to understand things. I have been editing Wikipedia for 5 years and never did any disruptive editing before this incident. Now, I understand this and doing editing carefully. Even suggesting others to stop any disruption. 45 days ago, from 6th to 8th November, things got heated. My conduct with fellow editors before and after the incident remained good and objective. Even when a couple of users got personal, I did not lose my calm. Kindly unblock me so that I can continue with productive and constructive editing, as this article has only a limited number of regular editors. Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. JBW (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2023 (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.

.

User:331dot Can u please help me for this? Nobodyelse is catering my request. Thanks & Regards. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has only been open for a day, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first inclination was to decline this unblock request, since you created a sockpuppet account for the sole purpose of evading the block, and you have been trying to use it for that purpose as recently as a week ago. However, I decided that it would be better to give you a chance to justify lifting the block. I will be willing to consider your request if you do both of the following:

List all of the accounts you have used.
You say "I was blocked from this article for disruptive editing, which I did by mistake due to the lack of knowledge... Now, I understand this". Please clarify what you now understand to have been problematic with your past editing, but which you previously didn't understand, and how any future editing will be different. It may well be that you do now understand, but unfortunately experience over the years is that blocked editors who say generic things such as "now I understand" actually don't, so it will help if you can show that you do understand. JBW (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:JBW,

1) The only other account I created was "UCoE Freaks" and last time I made edit with that account was more than 2 weeks ago, i.e. on 12th December (all constructive editing). After which, that account was fully blocked forever and this account was fully blocked for a week. After that, I made unblock requests, first for full block of this account as it was not working even after completion of 8 days and then for the previous partial block of this same account.

2) I now understand that if something is in discussion, I should not make changes (major or even minor change) catering to the same discussion before reaching consensus. In future also, if something will be in discussion, I will not make any change before reaching consensus. Thanks & Regards,

Also, I need a suggestion from you. As a couple of users are currently doing this thing, i.e., making changes before reaching consensus. What can or should I do in that case? Thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I once had an account named "Sunny Kamboj", even before SunnyKambojLive ... But I don't remember when it was last used to make any edit. Even don't remember it's password. If you say, I can try to check that. Only if that's necessary. Thanks User:JBW SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wjsbb? Was that not you, or was it another account of yours that you forgot about? JBW (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:JBW, That was never me. The person having that account had similar views as I used to have. And as I said earlier, some innocent person's account got banned unnecessarily bcoz an admin suspected it to be my sockpuppet. I already cleared it then.

Thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plz note this account that you mentioned Wjsbb was removing the data that I updated as UCoE Freaks. I was updating it as per concensus and as no one else was updating it then other than me.

So, how can I remove the same data and undo all all the hardwork that I did under UCoE Freaks (productive editing)? Actually, people were making me laugh when they were accusing me to be Wjsbb. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If u can, plz check that account for Sock by checking I.P address as even I suspect that someone (ppl who were against my opinions) was trying to frame me using Wjsbb. Thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I never really thought that Wjsbb was you, but some other people did, and I thought there was just about enough similarity to your editing to make it worth asking. There was also significant difference from you, which makes me think it wasn't you.

El C, this is all about a partial block that you placed. Do you think that what SunnyKambojLive has said above is enough of an indication that future editing will be different to make it worth giving them another chance by lifting the block? I'm sort of on the borderline. JBW (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:JBW Okay ... And, thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. They've been a single purpose account devoted to that page (and topic in general) since 2018. As I explained to them, while that's allowed, there is still higher level of scrutiny that comes with that. At this time, this still seems to be the only topic they edit. So I feel it's too soon, especially seeing as there was post-block socking. El_C 08:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To User:JBW and all the admins who will read this, as per the policies (some of which I went through few days ago) a ban (partial or otherwise) should be lifted or not, based on the reason why it was put at the first place. And reasons for one ban should not interfere with the lift of another ban. And, as per my knowledge, we should only edit on Wikipedia what we know about. This is not my personal blog, where I can edit anything as per my wish. Also, I was asked to take a break from this page and not this topic. Other users even suggested me other pages with this topic for editing. And, I edited accordingly. Scrutiny is there, that's why this unblock request is taking time to reach a decision. But it should not be like that "either edit as per our wish or remain blocked". I don't think there is any such policy. Kindly acknowledge me if there is one. And if something is allowed on Wikipedia, how that can be a reason to keep blocking someone? Talking about post-block socking, I already faced consequences for that, as User:Izno put a full ban on me for a week for the same reason. But the admin who blocked me earlier (partial block) has NOT given any valid reason related to why they DO NOT think the future editing by me will be different? As I already explained that I understand why it was placed. Blocks are the way to stop disruptive editing and should not be used as means of Punishment. I could have applied after a week only from the block for the unblock request. But I myself asked other admins and Users to be left alone for 1-2 months. And now, just a week left in completion of 2 months. I was partially blocked for disruptive editing, which I did by mistake (already mentioned before). And, which I never repeated. Also, I already told User:JBW in detail what I understood related to the above incident. So, I think I do deserve a fair chance. Please note, I also make many edits outside this topic of collections (before and after the partial block). You can check my edit history. And in the page or article being in question, where I contribute the most, I edit it with a Neutral point of view, which is allowed. I don't do any partiality in the collections or take any sides of any actor, actress, director, writer, etc. Moreover, I do editing mostly for Punjabi Cinema-related articles. And, it is a broad topic. And should not constitute for Single purpose. I edit pages of writers, directors, actors, actresses, movies, etc. One more day for New Year... Kindly consider closing this, so I can start afresh with 2023. Leaving a mistake of the past year behind. 😇 Thanks & Regards. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your rather peremptory message on my talk page about your unblock request. As you can see above, I consulted the blocking administrator about the possibility of unblocking, and they think not. I was not sure about unblocking, and with another opinion strongly against doing so I was not willing to unblock unilaterally. On the other hand, I was not so convinced that you shouldn't be unblocked that I would have been happy declining your unblock request, so I left it open in case another administrator might like to respond. Unfortunately, as you know, none has done so yet, and after this much time perhaps it's unrealistic to expect that any will do so. Another consideration is that you are blocked only from two articles out of all the millions of articles there are, and if you are so totally set on editing those two that you aren't willing to leave them for a while and move onto contributing elsewhere, it looks rather like an obsession. Considering all those facts, I think the best way forward is to leave the block in place, and suggest that you make a new unblock request in nit less than three moths from now. If in that time you can show that you are capable of making positive contributions on other articles, without problems similar to those which led to the block, then you may have a fair chance of being unblocked. JBW (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See, first of all, there are reasons to why I think I was blocked unnecessarily without any warning related to the actual reason for which I was blocked, i.e, creating a new article while a discussion was in progress.

You may also have read my above message where I mentioned how the blocking admin did not give valid or related reason for keeping me blocked. That's why I suspected it to be an admin abuse.

And any other admin may not responded as you were already examining the case. Even I was wondering that you might be busy. That's why, I finally left a msg on your talk page. Otherwise, I would have asked and requested some more admins for the same. You could have tell me the reasons for delay before declining the request.

Also, I edit other articles too. I was not willing to leave this article (it's only one, just with two different names) because I was blocked without related warning and have been blocked for two months now. I find this to be injustice and partiality towards few users who actually framed me and created situations to get me blocked by inciting various admins. It is not obsession but rather fighting the injustice.

Now, you are suggesting me for new unblock request in another 3 months. That will be complete injustice as I am already feeling anxiety and frustration for 2 months. Kindly suggest some better option. Like Administrator's notice board, dispute settlement or complaining to Arbitration Committee for suspected Admin Abuse? Kindly suggest. I hope to hear from you soon. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or should I just forget about the justice and stop editing Wikipedia.

It's sad how much time I devoted for thos article. For all the research and hard work. And I am getting this as the result. What more frustrating is people are doing disruptive editing on this article and people with opposing views than me are preventing them and also the damage they are causing to this article. It will be better to create my own blog rather than facing injustice and abuse of power by certain ppl here. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said yourself that you were unconvinced that I should not be unblocked. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need Guidance for Unblock Process

User:Rosguill I was writing the following on your talk page -

"Please guide me. As you know everything about my situation. I am ready to do whatever it will take to get unblocked (partial) (with time and patience). Whenever I make efforts to get unblocked, new problem arises. Kindly help me."

While I was writing this, User:RickinBaltimore blocked me sitewide. He gave WP:NOTHERE as the reason. I don't know what to say? After making around 1500 edits for 5 years, this is what I got. That too while requesting for a partial unblock of one article.

Now, I don't even know how to proceed or what to do. User:Rosguill, User talk:192.76.8.84 and User:RickinBaltimore, please tell me if this is the End of my time here. Or there is still something I can do to rectify this?

There is a lot of confusion. From past 3 months, I am doing whatever various admins were suggesting me to get out of partial block. If I was meant to be blocked sitewide anyway, then admins should have done it 3 months ago. Why my precious time (like everyone else's) got wasted? That too when User:Rosguill and User talk:192.76.8.84 were guiding me on how to proceed in the future.

Thanks ...

Frankly, you've failed to follow my advice multiple times already, and I don't have the time or patience to continue guiding you through this process. The one additional piece of advice I will give is that you should probably restore the old declined unblock requests, per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. At this point, your one recourse is to use the unblock request template on this page and appeal to patrolling admins. I suggest that you reflect carefully on the past discussions you've been in and the advice you've already been given, as if you are unable to demonstrate that you've learned something about your behavior here the reviewing admin will decline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From past 3 months, I am doing whatever various admins were suggesting me to get out of partial block. You need to think about this statement, because it sums up exactly why you are now blocked across the entire site, and is a continuation of the problem that got you partial blocked in the first place. I've already given far more guidance than I probably should have at ANI, if you can't figure out what the issue is at this point then honestly no, you probably won't be unblocked. We're not going to give you some magic words that you can put in an unblock request, you have to figure out what the problem is yourself. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]