User talk:Hajpo

image you are adding

Hello, if you share a source explaining your image I can help you add it to the articles that you edited. But I will need some more information explaining the relevance. Drew Stanley (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is of a painting of puthooram veed, see Vadakkan patt or Aromal chekavar wikipedia article.

also photos source is added in Wikipedia commons Hajpo (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. The source is needed not for the image but for the information you are giving about the image - to explain the relevance on the page. Does that make sense? Drew Stanley (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is from the image captions Hajpo (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image caption doesn't say anything about child wedding, adult version, etc. Source is needed, but I will help you in the meantime. Drew Stanley (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is the description : Description

English: Wedding at ‘Puthooram Veedu’. A mock marriage ceremony conducted during childhood. Hajpo (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So you need a source explaining why it could just go in any article, and a source to explain the rest of the details you are adding. I added a source at unniyarcha. Was unniyarcha married as a child, or do you just want the image in the article because of the place it is portraying? Again, if you can send me a source, that would be very helfpul. Drew Stanley (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the depiction of the scene from the balland.

The stroy in simple terms goes like these:

Unniyarcha and Chandu Chekavar were wed at this childhood ceremony , in a mock marriage by family members, but when they became old, Unniyarcha wed another rich warrior called attumanamel kunhiraman by paying the severe amount to chandu.

This created vengeance in chandu's mind, which later made him to kill her brother Aromal Chekavar.

You can read these stories in the respective articles. Hajpo (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drew Stanley You can see the story here : Oru Vadakkan Veeragatha , it is the film based on these stories. Hajpo (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect thanks. The stories are not clear in the articles yet, but we can look for sources Drew Stanley (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hajpo, can you take a look at the Aromal Chekavar article / my new post? Drew Stanley (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes they are correct, thank you for the edit Hajpo (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malabar Muslims

My applying protection to Malabar Muslims is not an endorsement of the revision that was current when protection was applied. Please don't assume otherwise. It is solely an admin action at a point in time. Nthep (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Your recent editing history at Malabar Muslims 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. Belbury (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]