User talk:Abrahmad111

To visitors of the page

I have not replied(and not interested)to some allegations (both personal and content related) made by one of of the persons here who was just writing some things based on just prejudices,stereotyping etc with out doing any balanced research and rubbishing earlier scholars' works.

I have provided all these references in the articles

1) Scholars have as far as 1-2 centuries ago considered references to Lemulawada and Bheema kavi .1829 - Biographical Sketches of Deccan poets( calcutta antiquarian dept with authentic sources).1918,Prabandha Ratnavali, 1917 Kavijanasrayam , 15th century Simhasana Dwatrishinka etc etc

2) Scholars have identified Malliya Rechana with Nizam Rashtram and Kavijanasrayam's affinity to Vemulawada,Karimnagar and possible antiquity more than 100 years ago.(Veturi Prabhakara Sastry's pre-Nannayya Chandassu)

3) Vemulawada was the only Jain Literary/Knowledge hub in Telugu speaking areas - P.V.P Sastry.

3) Unlike the British,the Nizam has not encouraged Telugu,research on Telugu history and many scholars had to learn only Urdu.Peots had to keep their works in private.People had a memory of their history only in their minds and not in books.Until Suravaram Pratapa Reddy,not much has happened in Telangana with regards to writing the history etc.,

While on the other side,in the Madras British Presidency,CP Brown has written Telugu dictionary, British govt encouraged works on Telugu history.So a lot of scholars from the British ruled areas were front runners in composing many works. and there was a competition too , a lot of differences of opinions with in their works.

Obviously a number of references will be from the works of scholars from the British presidency.Since wikipedia accepts only references and not from people's mind, it is inevitable.

4) The regionalistic differences that arose after 1968 were due to the people who discriminated based on prejudices and stereo typing and it has got nothing to do with the balanced people

5)Some British presidency scholars wrt Pothana who have not considered Nizam rashtram intially(due to a distance developed between the Telugu speaking regions) have later changed their view and finalized that Pothana belonged to Warangal atleast 100 years ago.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vemulawada_Bheemakavi

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Welcome!

Hello, Abrahmad111, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Check out WT:IN for India-related discussions.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! utcursch | talk 13:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Discussion at Talk:Malliya Rechana#Edit warring

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Malliya Rechana#Edit warring. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sep 07

@Abrahmad111 At first please visit Malliya Rechana page History and verify edits done by me. When coming back to the confusion tag make sure that the article is about a poet Malliya Rechana (or) Malliya Rechana it self a book. I think that article is about a poet. Provide information about the poet at the top then you can provide additional information. Now the page looks like unconstructive (or) a essay in 4 sections. My opinion is to make article clear.

Dear Joshq1234, I know you have not made any disruptive edit. But I don't want someone else again to be influenced by SubhashiniIyer. Thanks for pointing that the article is not clear. I will definitely make it cleaner in the coming days . --Abrahmad111 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia that you have done a great job by collecting the old information which is not know to many people.

Dear Joshq1234 Thank you !! --Abrahmad111 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you understand this and please don't make it a big issue. If you have any additional questions regarding this you can leave a message here (or) in my talk page. Joshq.JQ(talk)17:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshq1234

Discussion at User talk:Usernamekiran/Archives/2017/September#Sep_07

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Usernamekiran/Archives/2017/September#Sep_07. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of WiseWik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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 sock puppet, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 23:09, 18 September 2017 (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).

Abrahmad111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Admin, I don't know who this user User:WiseWik was.Please check my IP.I joined recently and I am contributing wikipedia with very old and solid facts.Please see appreciation from Joshq1234 "I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia that you have done a great job by collecting the old information which is not know to many people." I just found that WiseWik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) edited articles back in Komati caste. I am not interested specifically in Komati caste article but added content just for information sake.I think you have mistaken me since I put some words related to Jainism. I am not a jain by myself.However,I am just presenting facts.The content I had put had scholarly backing.https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.491601/2015.491601.telugu-marugulu#page/n95/mode/2up P.V.P Sastry]Andhra Kavi tarangini.I think you were misled by some people's words like vandalism.As I was to new to wikipedia(joined few months back) I din't know how to react to somebody else's disruptive editing.Abrahmad111 (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Please log in with your original account should you wish to submit an unblock request for consideration. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2017 (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).

Abrahmad111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Admins 1) It is unfair to block based on suspicion.Do you have confirmed evidence? 2) This is my original account. 3) I don't know who is WiseWik. 4) I was not aware of three revert rule or edit warring initially. 5) I was drawn into edit warring by one particular user. 6) The particular user has only half knowledge on the subject matter but has cleverly used the words like 'vandalism' to attract admins.Infact as of today,some other users realized that they were influenced by that user. 7) All my recent submissions have concrete proofs.The half knowledged person has no answer to them. 8) I learnt from my mistakes how not to get drawn into warring.There is no warring from the past 2-3 months. 9) I am making wikipedia accurate. If you still think I need to be blocked,please go ahead. I have no regrets. Abrahmad111 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks and no admin has decided to weigh in. You are welcome to request another unblock, but if you do so, please rewrite your request. Yamla (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2017 (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).

Abrahmad111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Admins 1) It is unfair to block based on suspicion.Do you have confirmed evidence? 2) This is my original account. 3) I don't know who is WiseWik. 4) I was not aware of three revert rule or edit warring initially. 5) I was drawn into edit warring by one particular user. 6) The particular user has only half knowledge on the subject matter but has cleverly used the words like 'vandalism' to attract admins.Infact as of today,some other users realized that they were influenced by that user. 7) All my recent submissions have concrete proofs.The half knowledged person has no answer to them. 8) I learnt from my mistakes how not to get drawn into warring.There is no warring from the past 2-3 months. 9) I am making wikipedia accurate. If you still think I need to be blocked,please go ahead. I have no regrets. Abrahmad111 (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been asked to rewrite your request, yet this unblock request is identical to the previous one. Alex Shih ^Talk 23:09, 9 October 2017 (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.

Is a CU appropriate for this situation? —usernamekiran(talk) 10:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WiseWik (talk · contribs) and his sock WishnuGupta (talk · contribs) are Stale so checkuser isn't going to be of much help. PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2017 (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).

Abrahmad111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Admins, This is my fourth request.When WiseWik is stale account ,why don't you compare the contributions? If you see the contribution history of WiseWik , it is all filled with Komati and Arya Vaishya and their origin etc.,99% of my contributions are related to Telugu literature and language. And my only contribution to Komati was just a couple of lines with valid citations. If some other user simply calls it vandalism , do admins believe this? I have added just a couple of lines in the history section, but the user SubhashiniIyer calls it vandalism in etymology Did the lines I added ever talked about etymology of the word Komati? It is unfortunate that I have to discuss in so much detail. It appears that admins can easily be trapped by using the word vandalism where ever any user wants.. These are my lines(that too related to literature and the focus is on its time period-history and dint even try to derive the word Komati's meaning-etymology) - There is literary evidence of the word 'Komati' Malliya Rechana in the 10th century AD - 13:29, 4 July 2017‎ Abrahmad111 (Undid vandalism revision788952937 . I did not put it in etymology section.I put it in history section. READ PROPERLY) (undo) 13:24, 4 July 2017‎ SubhashiniIyer (13,722 bytes) (-421)‎ . . (Undid page vandalism revision 788952500 by Abrahmad111 (talk). There is no reference to the etymology of word Komati in the ref you provide. Stop fooling around, please.) Abrahmad111 (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Duplicate request, and again does not follow the instructions of the unblock request. Further requests should be sent through UTRS. Alex Shih ^Talk 23:09, 9 October 2017 (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.

Nomination of Kavijanasrayam for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kavijanasrayam 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/Kavijanasrayam until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]