User talk:SidhantUnnithan

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, SidhantUnnithan! Thank you for your contributions. I am K6ka and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't realize that my article on a famous pop star would be seen as an advertisement. I am in no way affiliated to the person about which I wrote, or any company. All the information I used were from reliable South Korean articles and newspapers. I may have not included enough citations and references. If I were to be unblocked, I would edit my draft, and try submitting again. Hence, consider unblocking me. I reiterate that I had absolutely no intention of indulging in malpractices, and I genuinely accept my blunder SidhantUnnithan (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)SidhantUnnithan[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining per reasoning given by TonyBallioni. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 18 May 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.

TonyBallioni do you have any thoughts about this? 331dot (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, based on information DoRD told me, they are editing on a range populated by spammers and UPE accounts. This is a lazarus account that as their first edit in years requested a name change and then started to create a promo article about a Kpop musician that has been redirected to the main group for lack of notability and edit warred with by IPs for quite some time. Clearly a spammer and likely using a compromised account from years ago based on behavioral evidence combined with the CU findings re: the range. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do admit that that was my first edit in years. But that was only because I created an account when I was a child, with no intentions of editing or writing articles. I decided to author articles, when I was sure I could contribute. However, it seems I was sadly mistaken. The first reason cited by TonyBallioni is my name change. I would have it known that my name change, as far as I remember was from "sidhantunnithan" to "SidhantUnnithan" because I wanted to capitalize my initials, and so this is completely irrelevant to this argument. I did not essentially change my name. As for the second accusation, and I cite, "...and then started to create a promo article about a Kpop musician...". As I established in my previous request, this was NOT intended to be a promo article and I picked up all the information for South Korean sites, and newspapers. I did not praise her anywhere, and the article was as neutral as I could possibly keep it. Again, I am NOT affiliated to the musician, nor am I a fan. The sole reason I intended to author the article was to contribute to the community, with no twisted intentions. As for my edit wars, it was because I forgot my password and also wanted to change my name as mentioned above. Multiple changes to my account over a short period of time caused my IP to be blocked. This conflict was resolved, and cannot be held against me, since I did not commit an offence. The assumption that I am a spammer can also been rendered void. Since I presume I gave adequate reasons for each of the accusations, the behavioural evidence, so used against me, can be considered void. Moreover, I have now realised that my knowledge of the k-pop musician, and on the art of editing articles is quite limited in contrast to what I used to think. And so, I swear to refrain from making any edits or authoring articles until such time, when I have learnt to contribute to Wikipedia the right way. I hope you'll reconsider the indefinite ban imposed on me. Thank you. SidhantUnnithan (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Regardless of anything else, it looks to me like you copy-pasted content from this source into Draft:Nayeon. You will have to address this copyright violation in any further unblock requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

It has been 3 years since my rule violation. I am now older and much more mature. I understand the mistake I made, and have learnt from it. It will not happen again. I request an administrator to review my ban. SidhantUnnithan (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Sure thing. I'll address each of those points.

"The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" : Since before I was blocked, my intentions were always to contribute. And the reason I was blocked was because I did not adhere to the community contribution guidelines. I wrote an article without proper citations, and thus I can see why it was seen as promotion/advertisement. This will not happen again, and my contributions will be cited thoroughly and properly.
"The block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for" : As stated in the previous point, I understood my mistake, and will be adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia.
"Will not continue to cause damage or disruption" : I never intended to cause 'damage' or 'disruption' to Wikipedia. I am myself a heavy user of Wikipedia, and thought what I was doing was right. I realize now that it was not the right way to do things, and have since rectified my mistake.
"Will make useful contributions instead" : Since this was always my intention, I will definitely try my best to make useful contributions, but this time, I'll be adhering to the rules.

Thanks! SidhantUnnithan (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Asked and answered. I'm assuming good faith and unblocking. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]