User talk:Anand.sadasivam

Welcome!

Hello, Anand.sadasivam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Physics/It-Proven-to-be-Wrong-on-Every-Physical-Metrics, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! PK T(alk) 13:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Physics/It-Proven-to-be-Wrong-on-Every-Physical-Metrics

The article Physics/It-Proven-to-be-Wrong-on-Every-Physical-Metrics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Opinion piece, not well-written, no references.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PK T(alk) 13:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Physics for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Please refrain from adding nonsense to talk pages, as you did for Physics. AstroCog (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Physics, you may be blocked from editing. Adding warning since several violations after initial warning on 05.04.13. AstroCog (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Physics, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wikipedia articles and their talk pages are not places to discuss ideas you have in a general forum. A physics forum website would be a better place for that. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion about improving the related article. AstroCog (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Help me Anand.sadasivam (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In what way? You've totally ignored every message put on this talk page, almost a decade ago; what is different now? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:13, 6 July 2022 (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.

Anand.sadasivam (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock my potentials

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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't ignored, rather I have contributed across net and as with the other user accounts in wikipedia for whatsoever comes under Creative Commons license, I can say. Which made the overall Industry to Change & Adapt to my opinions, and even they made fair amount of good progression. So, what is your considerations now by being a User:Materialscientist to unblock my potentials as my revelations are accepted by many entrepreneur in their adoption of their technology. Anand.sadasivam (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not convince me you understand why your edits were inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, May be it was disruptive edits which is in-appropriative, lets see the future world ourselves. Agreed no need to unblock. —Anand.sadasivam (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2022 (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.

I haven't ignored, rather I have contributed across net and as with the other user accounts in wikipedia for whatsoever comes under Creative Commons license, I can say. Which made the overall Industry to Change & Adapt to my opinions, and even they made fair amount of good progression. So, what is your considerations now by being a User:Materialscientist to unblock my potentials as my revelations are accepted by many entrepreneur in their adoption of their technology. Anand.sadasivam (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]