Jananaga

Sumanth

I believe you are the same person as the user SumanthFC (talk · contribs). Please note, using multiple accounts is only allowed for legitimate purposes. I see that you might be the person in the article Sumanth, or someone closely connected, I suggest you stop editing the article right away (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help). If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you need to disclose it. I'll leave another message about it. You must answer it before editing any further. Thanks! — DaxServer (t · c) 18:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer Dear sir/madam. I am NOT being paid to edit said article. All the edits have been properly verified with valid citations from legitamite publications/websites. You can please go ahead and check citations. Thank you. Jananaga (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer And also, my previous edits had positive as well as negative information regarding said person and his films, along with the necessary valid citations, so the question of the edits being biased and favourable should not arise. Please go back and look again as I'm sure you will 😊🙏🏼 Thanks Jananaga (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for answering — DaxServer (t · c) 12:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Jananaga, you cannot continue to restore poorly-sourced promotionally-toned content to Sumanth. Given your edit history, I find it very difficult to believe that you don't have a conflict of interest here. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Ponyo given your edit history, I don't see you being properly aware of Indian, or specifically South Indian cinema. Most every link and source is from a proper and legitimate longstanding website or publication. And if you closely pay attention, there are equal doses of positive, negative, and neutral terminology. I just don't understand why you choose to dismiss such a huge portion of the article. At least removing certain portions would make some sense, even that I don't see the reason why. This is quite irresponsible and biased on your part, I'm kindly saying Jananaga (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Being aware of South Indian cinema is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that, as a Wikipedia administrator, I have an understanding on our policies and guidelines regarding promotion, reliable sourcing and conflicts of interest, all of which are issues with your editing. Nothing that a film does poorly at the box office is not the same as including negative information on one of the actors in the film. There are plenty of examples of inappropriate content within the article, but pulling one at random "This film opened on 9 January 2019 to critical acclaim but was deemed a box office failure. Sumanth's portrayal in his first supporting role however drew unanimous appreciation from all quarters" sourced to the blog Idlebrain is not acceptable. The source is used repeatedly in the article to lavish praise on the subject but does not even meet our reliable sourcing criteria. There is likely information in the removed content that is salvageable, but I believe that you have too much of a conflict of interest to be the person to make the edits. Regardless, you should be making your arguments for inclusion of specific text on the article talk page, not here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo it's quite obvious that you don't recognise an Indian website like idlebrain.com to be a proper source. It is one of the first and most popular south Indian cinema websites that has been in operation since the dawn of the internet. Quite sad and biased honestly that you feel otherwise about a legit source. This is my honest and polite observation Jananaga (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2022

Hello Jananaga. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jananaga. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jananaga|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. — DaxServer (t · c) 18:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Editing with a conflict of interest

Hello, Jananaga. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo I assure you, I have no relationship to the person in the article! There is no conflict of interest here Jananaga (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit history strongly suggests otherwise.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jananaga. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 18:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)