User talk:Intercell

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Denemours&company, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

username policy[edit]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

intercell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Behindwoods news template[edit]

This is a template to generate a link to Behindwoods news article in your edits.

Twitter status message Template[edit]

This is a template to generate a direct link to the Twitter status message. You can use this template to navigate directly to the Tweet or to refer someone directly to any Tweet in your wiki. You can use this template freely wherever you need to refer any tweets/twitter users of Twitter#Features for your external references or some other places. --Jenith Michael Raj (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Twitter_status

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Pharmaceutical industry in India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to Abbott, Roche, Merck, GSK and Glenmark

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarjuna[edit]

In this edit you have removed valid statements without any explanations and also removed reliable sources and replaced those by blogs. Could you explain the reason behind it? —Commander _{(Ping me)} 18:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guideline in WP to list only the significant achievements in the lead. Lead is a summary of the subject and not a list of achievements. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 19:40, 7 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I couldn't understand this comment vengeance by the user vensatry, I clearly said to him that he can expand Nagarjuna's Akkineni's section, I am not a sock puppet,this user vensatry is showing his vengeance over some other user unto me and is imagining, where is the technical evidence that I am a sock? (Intercell (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Decline reason:

The technical evidence is sufficient given your range jumping etc in the past, especially given the significant behavioral evidence, including this unblock request. —SpacemanSpiff 18:15, 10 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

which behavioral evidence you are talking about??? check the user talk page of me and the user talk page of Vensatry, see my approach towards him and his abusive approach towards me, compare my edits with the edits of vensatry (my grammar, spelling, neutral tone, respecting other editors is far advanced than vensatry, my polite behvaior in his usertalk page answers all questions, if two editors are incompatible, that doesnt mean the other is a sock, I am definitively not a sock puppet of padmal

Decline reason:

No. In addition to having Confirmed this through checkuser, I've found a number of other accounts you've been using that we hadn't caught yet. Those are now blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:16, 11 December 2011 (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.

(Intercell (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

{{unblock|You first answer my question, which behavioral evidence of edits related to my username intercell?? you are talking about?? No this the my only account, there are no other accounts, I am not a sock of padmal, If IP address is the same, I cant help it, if one editor needlessly accuses me of sock, I will not become a sock, I am not a sock puppet}} You were originally blocked as a suspected sock of Padmalakshmisx, but now confirmed by CheckUser above. I don't see how unblocking would be a reasonable action. If you want your question answered then feel free to look here. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I am asking you, which behavioral evidence of edits related to my username intercell were objectionable?? you are talking about?? You give me evidence that edits by intercell that is me are not as per wikipedia standards, you give me evidence about any objectionable behvaior with respect to my edits with my username intercell which was changed from denemours&company, I was not involved in edit war and I have not undone any other editors contribs, check user identifies the IP address but not the user, I am not a sock puppet of padmal}}

No, Checkuser does identify all usernames that are on a given IP. In any case, administrators generally do not have access to the Checkuser tool and will not overturn a Checkuser-confirmed block. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 10:08, 11 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

so if Checkuser does identify all usernames that are on a given IP , so how can all users on a same IP be a sock puppet??? if it is a dynamic IP???I am asking you, which behavioral evidence of edits related to my username intercell were objectionable?? you are talking about?? You give me evidence that edits by intercell that is me are not as per wikipedia standards, you give me evidence about any objectionable behvaior with respect to my edits with my username intercell which was changed from denemours&company, I was not involved in edit war and I have not undone any other editors contribs, check user identifies the IP address but not the user, I am not a sock puppet of padmal

Decline reason:

The evidence suggests that you are indeed a sockpuppet. You are not addressing the reason for your block, and so I am declining this request. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:16, 12 December 2011 (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.

Please stop copying and pasting your unblock requests again and again and again, it will lead you nowhere. Please address the unblock reasons instead of wasting time repeatedly making unblock requests that will be left with being declined. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:48, 12 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not copying and pasting, I am giving u the right reason, that, you give me evidence that edits by intercell that is me are not as per wikipedia standards, you give me evidence about any objectionable behvaior with respect to my edits with my username intercell which was changed from denemours&company, I was not involved in edit war and I have not undone any other editors contribs, check user identifies the IP address but not the user, I am not a sock puppet of padmal

Decline reason:

Yada yada yada. You didn't take the hint in the above comment, and now you're going to pay the price. This is your last unblock request, at least on this page, as I'm cutting you off from it so you won't waste anymore of our time. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2011 (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.