User talk:Msmimiin

June 2025

Hello, I'm PawPatroler. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Ira Dubey, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! PawPatroler (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Dubey is a popular theatre and film actress she stays in Mumbai, this information is missing hence I have added the information, do you want a published article as a supporting document as reliable source? Just google it , you may get 20 article as a supporting reliable source. 2409:4080:E8D:61EC:7EB1:437E:46B:1F31 (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.hindustantimes.com/htcity/htcity-delhi-junction/ira-dubey-ganpati-in-delhi-is-calmer-can-never-find-this-peace-in-mumbai-101695799122964.html 2409:4080:E8D:61EC:7EB1:437E:46B:1F31 (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you can add the information back in... if you put that source in. Got it? PawPatroler (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Needful done . Msmimiin (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Newslinger. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 17:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes it's a mistake. I have not used any content which is generated by AI on the wikipedia page for which I have raised my concerns about the tags as mentioned. The page belongs to a popular Indian Singer . Kindly review it if you can and address the issue. Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Msmimiin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 17:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. — Newslinger talk 17:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a mistake. I have not done any such editing . Can you please check my history. Msmimiin (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 17:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. Msmimiin (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Msmimiin!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warm welcome but I have seen you have commented on the ANI page , I am absolutely terrified of the behaviour of certain admins who seeks to attack me personally for no solid reason or fault , in fact they have tagged me as a sockpuppet, even after answering all their questions they are questioning me , I don't understand how to satisfy them with my answers , if you can guide eor help will be be very helpful. Msmimiin (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

seems* Msmimiin (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be afraid of the ANI discussion. I want to echo what Liz recently said there and note that while editors try not to WP:BITE the newcomers, the actions of every involved editor in these discussions are looked into, including yourself, to remain unbiased and transparent when such an incident report is filed. That is typically why they are considered a last resort in WP:Dispute resolution. I am not going to pick a side but remain neutral. I will encourage you to read through Wikipedia's WP:Image use policy to better understand how image copyrights and licensing works and how Wikipedia handles them, especially for uploading your own work to the encyclopedia, which is encouraged as long as it is verifiable (which I think you have provided sufficient reasoning to prove). I will say that reverting another editor when you are in disagreement in ill-advised, but once you both reach three reverts each, neither can exceed that number, per WP:3RR. From CNMall's perspective, I think since your editing patterns and some behavior were similar to other long-term abuse accounts editing a specific set of articles, they naturally presumed a potential option with a common denominator, but sought proof with potential evidence they gathered. That is what the SPIs are for: to prove or disprove whether multiple accounts are being used for abuse. The conflict of interest tag was likely added because the image was not readily verifiable to be your own work, and Wikipedia has a tendency to gain the attraction of celebrities themselves or their managers attempting to edit their articles. When information on Wikipedia cannot be readily verified, it is usually removed to maintain balance and accuracy from independent third-party contributors. I hope this helps explain things. Cheers! — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed information and guidance will follow it . When details on Wikipedia can not readily verified , it is usually removed to maintain balance , here are you talking about the comment which has been flagged will be removed from the page or the page itself will be removed, can you tell me . Msmimiin (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you have blocked my account without the SIP team's verdict that I have misused this account. Msmimiin (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator is allowed to block based on SPI evidence. As a mostly-uninvolved administrator who has been watching this unfold through his watchlist page, I would endorse Rosguill's block here based on the evidence and reasoning process presented at the SPI. You are clearly hiding something more than you are letting on here. Your only options here is to come clean. Sohom (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked by rosguill without any solid evidence of sockpuppeting

Hi Admins and SIP teams

I have been accused for sock puppeting but without any SIP team's verdict, I have blocked unreasonably please look into the matter and unblock me. Msmimiin (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not how this works. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Be transparent and accurate. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given you bludgoned the SPI case regarding you, your comment above is without merit, especially since the sockpuppetry was only part of the reason you were blocked. The fact you suddenly "remembered" your login details for your other account after being blocked is not helping your case as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my messages I have clearly said , if my new ID is creating doubt block it I can use my old id , it's not about sudden remember its about when someone has two IDs when they accepted that and propose a solution admins block of the ID's intentionally and randomly just because they have power is not right , in anyways 2% people contribute in Wikipedia , this percentage will go down surely for this kind of whimsical blocks . After explaining everything even asking to block one ID both of my ID's have been blocked. 2405:201:49:A814:9C5A:CD7D:8227:B63B (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again don't point out 'suddenly remember' once can retrieve the ID right , when I myself suggested my id 'msmimiin'you guys can block and I can use my original ID 'Lopamudra Das' , what the admin did , blocked both of my ID's intentionally. Ofcourse I can't log in from any of the ID's now ,this is a random block without having any solid ground. Clear case of misuse of power. 2405:201:49:A814:9C5A:CD7D:8227:B63B (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please note that your account being blocked, by itself, does not prevent you from logging in to that account. This means you are still able to log in to both your Msmimiin and your Lopamudra Das accounts. As your original account is Lopamudra Das, if you ever intend to appeal your block, you would need to use your Lopamudra Das account to do so on its talk page (User talk:Lopamudra Das) by following the instructions in the notice at User talk:Lopamudra Das § June 2025. — Newslinger talk 19:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]