User talk:Jhon025

July 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Lokesh Kanagaraj, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dinesh Victor (July 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gheus was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dinesh Victor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gheus (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gheus, I have made the changes as per your suggestions Jhon025 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dinesh Victor

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dinesh Victor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Victor. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 11:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dinesh Victor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dinesh Victor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Victor (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Agent 007 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the deletion tag again, or try to remove it, I'll block you

Doug Weller talk 09:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not delete or attempt to remove the tag again. Jhon025 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dinesh Victor (August 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Thilsebatti was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dinesh Victor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thilsebatti (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jhon025! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Thilsebatti (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello Jhon025. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Dinesh Victor, 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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 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 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:Jhon025. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jhon025|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. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thilsebatti

Hello Thilsebatti,

Thank you for pointing this out. I would like to confirm that I am not receiving any payment, compensation, or other benefit—directly or indirectly—from Dinesh Victor or any related party for my edits. My contributions are made voluntarily to improve the encyclopedia using reliable sources, and I will continue to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability. Jhon025 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jhon025, Thank you for the suggestions

Hello Thilsebatti, Thank you for pointing this out. I would like to confirm that I am not receiving any payment, compensation, or other benefit—directly or indirectly—from Dinesh Victor or any related party for my edits. My contributions are made voluntarily to improve the encyclopedia using reliable sources, and I will continue to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.

I appreciate your clarification. Please note that Wikipedia takes conflicts of interest very seriously, and honesty about such matters is important for building trust. If you do have any COI—whether paid or unpaid— declaring it openly on your user page or the draft’s talk page will not automatically disqualify your contribution. In fact, transparent disclosure often makes the review process smoother, provided the article is written from a neutral point of view and is supported by reliable, independent sources. I would encourage you to review WP:COI and WP:PAID carefully, and if any COI exists, disclose it so reviewers can proceed with full context. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thilsebatti

Thank you for your message. I confirm that I do not have any paid or unpaid conflict of interest regarding Dinesh Victor or the draft article. I am contributing purely out of personal interest in documenting notable individuals, and my edits are based on reliable, independent sources. Jhon025 (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Syed hameed hussain.S per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Syed hameed hussain.S. 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.

Izno (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno

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).

Jhon025 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe my account has been mistakenly identified as a sockpuppet of User:Syed hameed hussain.S. I do not know this person, nor have I ever used or controlled that account. This is my only account on Wikipedia, and I have never attempted to evade blocks or use multiple accounts. I respectfully request a review of the technical evidence and reconsideration of this block. Thank you. Jhon025 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My use of the CheckUser tool confirms that you have abused multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2025 (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.