User talk:Vanished User 167802

March 2012

Your recent edits to Periyar (river) could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you.

This is unacceptable. Now, please go to the talk page, read what various people have been discussing and feel free to add your own opinion. Sitush (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:17, 2 March 2012 (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).

Vanished User 167802 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear admin team, Myself not being a regular editor/contributor I was quite unaware of the policy regarding legal challenge on wikipedia articles, therefore the block may be reviewed by accepting this statement as my apology being due to ignorance, and I hereby pledge to detain from offering any such legal challenges through wikipedia. Also recently I have got information regarding some provisions of cyber crime investigation cell of the Govt. of India, by which they are initiating actions to counter concerted efforts on twisting of official facts as affirmed by Govt. agencies. As such I don't need to initiate any legal action on my personal behalf in the concerned issue, rather the Govt. would take up the necessary action from their own side Ashokkerala (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're still attempting to causd a chilling effect through your words. ("I don't have to make a legal threat, the government agency I contacted will.") --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:45, 2 March 2012 (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).

Vanished User 167802 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was due to ignorance, so I apologized, assured not to repeat and appealed ! User Jpgordon says: "You're still attempting to causd a chilling effect through your words. ("I don't have to make a legal threat, the government agency I contacted will.")". - Kindly see that this is his own words but not mine, as I didn't ever say that I contacted any agency for any purpose whatsoever. Instead I was simply pointing out a Govt. policy in general, that individuals doesn't need to legally take up disputes related to twisting of official data affirmed by the Govt., but there is already an existing mechanism intended for tackling such cyber law related affairs. As such My appeal shall be kindly considered again, ignoring such false assumptions and prejudices. Thanks.. Ashokkerala (talk)

Decline reason:

Per comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2012 (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).

Vanished User 167802 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Again I wish to reiterate, being an amateur I was quite unaware of the policy regarding "legal challenge on wikipedia articles", so I have duly expressed my apology and further assured not to repeat. What else should I do to remove the block ??? Kindly advise.. -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Decline reason:

I have read through this page, and your contributions. At this point, the only "apology" I see is for having been "an amateur...unaware of the policy", which means little. You have been directed to read WP:NLT - you MUST remain blocked until the threat has been wholly retracted (something like "I hereby state that I am neither in the process of taking legal actions myself, nor have I instructed or requested others to take action"), AND if accepted, you will need to use strikeout (<s> .... </s>) around the original place where the apparent legal threats were made (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 4 March 2012 (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.

Dear admin team, Myself not being a regular editor/contributor I was quite unaware of the policy regarding legal challenge on wikipedia articles, therefore the block may be reviewed by accepting this statement as my apology being due to ignorance, and I hereby pledge to detain from offering any such legal challenges through wikipedia. Also recently I have got information regarding some provisions of cyber crime investigation cell of the Govt. of India, by which they are initiating actions to counter concerted efforts on twisting of official facts as affirmed by Govt. agencies. As such I don't need to initiate any legal action on my personal behalf in the concerned issue, rather the Govt. would take up the necessary action from their own side Ashokkerala (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2012 (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).

Vanished User 167802 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Again I wish to reiterate, being an amateur I was quite unaware of the policy regarding "legal challenge on wikipedia articles", so I have duly expressed my apology and further assured not to repeat.

Anyway, as advised by admin (BWilkins) I hereby state that I am neither in the process of taking legal actions myself, nor have I instructed or requested others to take action.

I have already stated this in my second unblock request, but disregarded by the admin(jpgordon) as may be seen here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ashokkerala&oldid=480062203

As such this block may be revoked at the earliest. -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked while you are continuing to make accusations of defamation and of bad faith, below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2012 (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.

Kindly see that I have had cited an official record kept by the Govt. department which is regarded as the apex authority in the country in the concerned topic, which was rejected by another user(Sitush) for unknown reasons, even without any factual/authentic reference. From the cited authentic/official record it is clearly evident that the river Periyar originates in the state of Kerala. Moreover this user(Sitush) persistently kept fighting against me reverting my edits since several months and finally pushed to block me on WP:LT !

Concerned WP Article: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Periyar_(river)&oldid=479871312

Link to authentic/official record: http://mowr.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/mediumriver7679492738.pdf

It may be noted that the user Sitush belongs to Tamilnadu, hence claiming that the river belongs to his state, while I'm from Kerala where the river actually originates and flows through towards the Arabian sea, though this river has been diverted to Tamilnadu for irrigation needs by building a dam named Mullaperiyar dam in Kerala state and from there through a tunnel drilled across the Western ghats mountain range. Hope the admins would do the needful to ensure truthfulness of the Wikipedia and the articles therein from being twisted by concerted efforts of a few users. -- Ashokkerala (talk)

How do you know that I "belong to Tamil Nadu"? Your continued personalisation of an issue that is being discussed by many people is going to end up badly, I fear. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - Your edits on "good faith" reveals your "non-partisan" stand in the issue.

Anyhow, no need to fear, we Keralites are not insane and we have trust in truth, "Truth alone triumphs" ! Be optimistic dear, I'm sure this issue will definitely have a nice ending, I have gathered some more authentic/official documents to ratify the truth. Not only this one, I'm committed to prevent defamation of my community (Nairs) too :-) -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Because alleging defamation has worked so well in the past? JanetteDoe (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because defamation has been going on since a long while and now it's time to put an end to it !

Wish if I too had a colorful girlfriend.. :-) -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Perhaps you should wish instead for a library card to a good university. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise, I didn't knew that universities over there have some courses on defamation! Anyway we have plenty of better universities here from the ages of our great ancestors Nalanda, you are always welcome if you wish to study something different :-)

Where does that phrase - "Truth alone triumphs" - come from? Is it a movie or a book or something? Your edits and your use of that phrase are making me a little suspicious. If you have contributed to English Wikipedia using another account then I think it would be best to say so now. As I commented when Truthalwaystriumphs was blocked, here on Wikipedia it is verifiability that triumphs, not truth. That is just the way it is. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That is close enough. A somewhat surprising motto for a country that censors so much! - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First thing, I would like to appreciate the love and care for each other !

If it's true that it's verifiability that triumphs, may I ask why the most authentic official record kept by the Govt. of India Ministry of Water Resources which is regarded as the apex authority in the country in the concerned topic, was not taken into account??

Politicians may hinder the truth by censoring and all, but we have a few people here who are still loyal to that motto, hope this embarrasses those people who are set to defame their own brethren and their ancestors. -- Ashokkerala (talk)

It is being taken into account. We are doing it in the correct manner, via discussion at Talk:Periyar (river) rather than by edit warring. Your continued references to defamation etc are not helping your chances of this block being removed and may, indeed, cause someone to remove your ability even to edit this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{admin help}} Kind attention Admins, the user Sitush has threatened of imposing more bans on my account using those admins associated with him as he had done previously, while persistently fighting against me reverting my edits since several months without even considering the data cited from the most authentic official record kept by the Govt. of India Ministry of Water Resources which is regarded as the apex authority in the country in the concerned topic. Now the admins in his friend circle have imposed severe bans on my account including viewing admin/unblock noticeboards and profile of the blocking/reviewing admin (so that I won't be able to trace his connection with the user Sitush. Request to kindly go through my statements above and arrange the needful to extend justice to me without any further delay as it's already more than 2 days since the ban has imposed initially and I have made several appeals with due apology and assurance to refrain from such actions any further. Or otherwise kindly advise me if I need to raise this issue for an arbitration. Thanks -- Ashokkerala (talk)

In a different discussion, the Wikipedia editor Gerardw wrote 'It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It has a "most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system'. (3 June 2011 (UTC)) Even if we disregard your attempts to imtimidate other editors by implying that legal action might take place, there are abundant reasons in your editing history for keeping you blocked, and I have accordingly changed the block reason listed in the block log, to say that you are blocked for disruptive editing. Amongst other things, you have edit warred; you have shown perfectly clearly that you intend to impose your own view, without regard to the judgements of other editors; you have made clearly false statements about other editors (such as your claim that others are not "taking into account" material that they have discussed, and clearly are taking into account); you have shown an apparent belief that all edits you disagree with are the result of a wicked conspiracy, including at least once claiming that the editors who disagree with you are members of a "terrorist group"; you have never joined in to discussion in a constructive way, but have rather harangued others with your insistence that your view is RIGHT; you have made repeated unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith; you have repeatedly shown bad faith yourself (as, for example, in your statement on this page that you hope that you have embarrassed others); you have repeatedly made it clear that you wish to impose a particular point of view. I have seriously considered removing your talk page access, as your endless posts here are unconstructive and a waste of our time, but i have decided for now to merely warn you that that is likely to happen without further notice if you continue in the same way. It may also point out that, contrary to what you seem to think, the fact that a statement is published by a government does not mean that it automatically over-rides any and every other source. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring declined unblock requests that you have removed. Please do not remove then as long as the block is in place. Doing so makes it more difficult for administrators to check the relevant history in order to consider subsequent unblock requests, or for other purposes. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reply to the recent comments from the last admin who reviewed:

1. // there are abundant reasons in your editing history for keeping you blocked, and I have accordingly changed the block reason listed in the block log, to say that you are blocked for disruptive editing //

As for this, kindly see that it could have happened sometimes in the beginning when I was just anew, being just an amateur and didn't have much editing experience, but now I have got a little better and know how to follow the guidelines on editing an article and discussing on it.

2. // you have edit warred; you have shown perfectly clearly that you intend to impose your own view, without regard to the judgements of other editors; you have made clearly false statements about other editors (such as your claim that others are not "taking into account" material that they have discussed, and clearly are taking into account) //

This accusation is completely unfounded, as my accusation about the "not taking into account" is very much true, as can be interpreted from the user Sitush's recent comments "It is being taken into account. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)"

clearly states that he never considered it before, but only today after going through all these mess. This may be verified from the talk page discussion where he has written his views about the existing citations pointing to user uploaded resources, though he never points to my reference to the most authentic/official citation.

3. // you have shown an apparent belief that all edits you disagree with are the result of a wicked conspiracy, including at least once claiming that the editors who disagree with you are members of a "terrorist group" //

This is somewhat true, to some extent, since I have clear and substantial evidences for the user(Sitush) and his team persistently fighting against me reverting my edits since several months without even considering the data cited from the most authentic official record in the concerned topic, and also regarding the accused user's association with people connected to a banned terrorist group in India which was involved in the assassination of one of our former PM's.

4. // you have never joined in to discussion in a constructive way, but have rather harangued others with your insistence that your view is RIGHT //

Cant agree with this since it's evident that the opposing team headed by user (Sitush) has been persistently fighting against me reverting my edits since several months without even considering the data cited from the most authentic official record in the concerned topic. As such it's not me who harangued anyone but the user (Sitush) and his team who tended to cite unfounded user uploaded documents as factual source of information while disregarding the most authentic source from the Govt. agency assigned for maintaining such records.

5. //you have made repeated unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith; you have repeatedly shown bad faith yourself (as, for example, in your statement on this page that you hope that you have embarrassed others); you have repeatedly made it clear that you wish to impose a particular point of view. //

Totally absurd, since he have picked up a fragment of my sentence to highlight his point, without going through the user (Sitush)'s statement in reply to which I commented and without taking the sentence as a whole. Please see this:

Me: // we Keralites are not insane and we have trust in truth, "Truth alone triumphs" //

Sitush: // Ah. That is close enough. A somewhat surprising motto for a country that censors so much! //

Me: // Politicians may hinder the truth by censoring and all, but we have a few people here who are still loyal to that motto, hope this embarrasses those people who are set to defame their own brethren and their ancestors. //

6. // I have seriously considered removing your talk page access, as your endless posts here are unconstructive and a waste of our time, but i have decided for now to merely warn you that that is likely to happen without further notice if you continue in the same way. //

This ratifies my accusation // the user Sitush has threatened of imposing more bans on my account using those admins associated with him as he had done previously // as implied by the statement:

// Your continued references to defamation etc are not helping your chances of this block being removed and may, indeed, cause someone to remove your ability even to edit this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC) //

7. // I am restoring declined unblock requests that you have removed. Please do not remove then as long as the block is in place. Doing so makes it more difficult for administrators to check the relevant history in order to consider subsequent unblock requests, or for other purposes. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC) //

Those declined unblock requests were deleted as per the advise from another admin who commented on the page earlier as quoted herein below:

// Please choose which unblock request you would like reviewed and remove the other one. Thanks Tiderolls 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC) //

Finally the above review by the admin (JamesBWatson) again ratifies my accusation // the user Sitush has threatened of imposing more bans on my account using those admins associated with him as he had done previously //

I am not reading all of what you have written but, for starters, you are completely wrong at your second point. Have you actually looked at the discussion about the origins at Talk:Periyar (river)? It has been going on for days and it is proving to be very civil despite the various opinions - it is a knotty problem. This civility and willingness to discuss etc is not how it was when you were involved. Please retract your statement. In fact, please retract all of your statements concering me because a quick scan suggests that - as previously - you are completely misrepresenting things and making false allegations. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, whatever you think about me, my apologies !

Can you show me a single instance where you have ever discussed my citation from MOWR [| MOWR], prior to 21:22, 4 March 2012 ? -- Ashokkerala (talk)

What? That source is discussed from at least as early as 28 February and I responded specifically to you on 2 March regarding the thing. I am fed up of your attitude. If nothing else, it demonstrates a high degree of carelessness and bad faith. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion board is hereTalk:Periyar_(river) which clearly shows that you have never ever considered my citation from MOWR prior to 4 March 2012. On 28 February you have discussed to the existing citations on the page, but nothing about MOWR. You are the most "apt person" to accuse me of carelessness and bad faith ! -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Ashokkerala, you need to stop this battlefield approach and your non-stop accusations against what you seem to see as a conspiracy of people joining together to fight you. You asked for help from an uninvolved admin, and you got a very constructive and helpful response from JamesBWatson (who, in my opinion, is one of the fairest admins we have - and has no involvement in the content under discussion), and your response was to effectively accuse him of being part of the conspiracy too. I think you were lucky that JamesBWatson did not revoke your access to this Talk page. As I have already declined one unblock request, I will not take any further admin action myself (and will leave your latest admin help request for someone else to formally answer), but I will warn you that if you carry on with your approach of not listening, of attacking people, and of badly misrepresenting what people say and do, you are very likely to have that access denied. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the battlefield approach which you have stated: Kindly see that I'm not much an experienced Wiki user, but I'm just into learning things on my own and trying to contribute to Wikipedia on such topics that I'm having good knowledge and factual supporting documents/evidences. I apologize for all/any mistakes happened from my side in the past, and I assure to avoid such unfortunate events in the future. Anyhow I'm now in a helpless condition due to the "team work" of a few people, as may be perceived from the above. Anticipating your generous reply favoring justice and thanking you -- Ashokkerala (talk) ??

Did you ever care to verify whether if my accusations are true or not?

I don't know any of those admins, but from the nature of their replies without considering the factual data and misrepresenting my views gave me such an impression about them to be being part of the conspiracy. Do you think it's impossible for me to create another user account in Wiki? You should see that I have solid proof for what I'm arguing for and I don't want to withdraw by failing to defend my land and my community from being misrepresented. Anyway thanks for the advise, my apologies to you too ! -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Wow, so now you are suggesting that you may resort to sockpuppetry, on top of all the other problematic behaviour that you have demonstrated? I realise that you may be new here but you really do have to listen to people and it is clear to me that you have no intention of doing so. Why not take a break for a bit, read up on some of the numerous policies etc and then start again here on this talk page with (a) a genuine, no-strings apology and (b) a rational unblock request based on your new-found knowledge of policy etc? Right now, all you are doing is digging yourself into a hole. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, when you said "Kindly see that I'm not much an experienced Wiki user, but I'm just into learning things on my own and trying to contribute to Wikipedia on such topics that I'm having good knowledge and factual supporting documents/evidences. I apologize for all/any mistakes happened from my side in the past, and I assure to avoid such unfortunate events in the future. Anyhow I'm now in a helpless condition due to the "team work" of a few people, as may be perceived from the above", you were apologising for your lack of understanding and your mistakes, but then continuing it in the very next sentence by repeating your "team work" accusations! If you cannot understand that, and refuse to try to treat the project as a collegial one rather than a place to fight battles, you will not be unblocked - and should you create any new accounts, they will be blocked too. I strongly suggest you have a read of WP:5, and try to get a good feel for the pillars of the project and for how we work here. And then, if you feel you can fit in and work constructively with others in improving the encyclopedia through the use of reliable sources and through discussions leading to consensus, please feel free to make another unblock request, but without any accusations of "team work" against you, or allegations of bad faith on the part of others - and another admin will then make the decision, not any of the five who have so far judged against you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those what you have mentioned above are applicable only for me and not for user Sitush, right? Did you see him accusing me of bad faith above? Actions and bans are applicable only for me and not for those who battle against me and trying to provoke me by coming around and commenting on my talk page with his boy-friends and girl-friends ? Thanks for the advise ! -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Personal comments aren't going to help your case. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need not worry, my girlfriend will not come to help my case -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Ashokkerala, this is your Talk page, and you are the one blocked, so it is your behaviour that must be addressed, not anyone else's. You will not get yourself unblocked by continuing to make accusations against other editors -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your honor ! -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Unblock request

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).

Vanished User 167802 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Kindly see that I'm not much an experienced Wiki user, but I'm just into learning things on my own and trying to contribute to Wikipedia on such topics that I'm having good knowledge and factual supporting documents/evidences. I apologize for all/any mistakes happened from my side in the past, and I assure that I will try to avoid such events in the future -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Decline reason:

The reason for declining this request must be clear from the innumerable attempts made here by various editors to explain the situation to you, and you persistent inability or unwillingness to understand what they are saying. In addition, your talk page access will be removed, as has been explained to you. Your endless battleground mentality, accusations of a great conspiracy against you, persistent comments which show that you fail to understand what has repeatedly been explained to you very carefully, and so on and so on are wasting people's time and achieving nothing constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2012 (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.

What you need to do is make it clear that you understand that your battlefield approach, including your accusations against other editors, is not appropriate at Wikipedia, that you withdraw your accusations of a conspiracy being fomented by Sitush against you, and that you will start to engage in collegial attempts to find consensus whenever there is content disagreement. That, I think, would be the very minimum for an admin to consider unblocking you - and it's looking very doubtful at the moment, seeing as you are making apologies for your inappropriate behaviour and promising not to repeat it while at the same time repeating it in other comments -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction: conspiracies fomented by anyone. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your honor, I understand everything ! -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Logged-in only, please

All appeals for unblock and discussions of such must be made while logged in, otherwise we have no idea who is talking -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you should not remove any comments from other people from block discussions on this page while you are still blocked - if you get yourself unblocked, you can then remove whatever you want, but only when logged in. I have reverted your anonymous edits, but please feel free to log in and try again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT remove other people's comments from the unblock discussion while you are blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your honor! -- Ashokkerala (talk)

Another warning

Do not refactor other people's comments - my comment above is a RESPONSE to your unblock request, which is why I placed it AFTER it, not BEFORE it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I couldn't recall whether did I invite any other people to comment on my talk page.

If we have enough time, may I ask why can't we spend some time to constructively contribute to Wikipedia by researching on some useful topic as Global Unemployment crisis and creating an article on it?

-- Ashokkerala (talk)

Nobody needs an invitation to comment here, because you do not own the page - the page is for discussing your participation in the Wikipedia project, and is the appropriate page to discuss things with you, and to issue you with warnings and block notices. And while you are blocked, you are only allowed access to it for the purpose of discussing your block and working towards unblock. So if you post anything further here that is not directly related to your block, I will suspend your ability to edit here until your current unblock request is reviewed by another admin -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Before you said you are not considering any further to unblock me, now you are thinking to suspend me!!

Why cant you consider dismissing/deleting the profile itself rather than suspending my abilities?

WP:5P says "Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes", is that true?

-- Ashokkerala (talk)

I personally cannot review another unblock request, because I have already declined one - that's the rules. But if you carry on using this Talk page for reasons other than working toward an unblock, I can (and will, if necessary) remove your ability to edit it until another admin reviews your current request. I will not be "dismissing/deleting the profile", as that is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and it is reasonable to wait for your current unblock request to be reviewed.
As for WP:5P, yes, it does say to be bold and don't worry about mistakes, but that is referring to making editing mistakes - and you are not blocked for making editing mistakes. It does not say you can carry on an edit war if people disagree with your edits, or that you can imply legal action if you don't get your own way, or that it is OK to make conspiracy accusations if more than one person disagrees with you, or that it is acceptable to see Wikipedia as a battleground with fights to be won, etc. Pillar 4 is the key one here - "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", "assume good faith on the part of others", etc. Also, at the bottom of WP:5P, you'll see a drop-down "Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines" box, which has links to lots more pages that should help you to better understand the Wikipedia approach. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let me go through those policies to see if there's something that could really help me -- Ashokkerala (talk)

{{admin help}}.

Dear Admins, Kindly see that until now I have gone through the editing of just two articles on Wikipedia:

(1) Periyar (river) : My home is located on the banks of this river, less than 150Km from the origin and I personally know very well about it's various aspects, geographical as well as administrative.
(2) Nair : Me and my ancestors belong to the community referenced by this article and I have plentiful of authentic records and information regarding the community and related history in our native language, dating back to several centuries.

But unfortunately Sitush and a few people associated with him (as may be verified from their talk pages) have been persistently fighting against me reverting my edits repeatedly without even considering the data cited from the most authentic official records from Govt. sources and ignoring the most relevant citation even in the discussions on the article's talk-page. Anyhow I'm now in a helpless condition due to the team work of a few people, as may be perceived from my talk page. Wish if some neutral admin out there could help me! -- Ashokkerala (talk)

No, you are not "in a helpless condition due to the team work of a few people". You are in a helpless condition due to your own inability or unwillingness to understand what has been said to you, together with your absurd belief that everyone who does anything you don't like is part of a terrorist group that is conspiring against you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]