User talk:Chuthya

Welcome!

Hello, Chuthya! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

AfD comments

In regards to [ this], and similar boilerplate keep messages you've placed on Mr. O'Keeffe's AfDs: We don't stop a guy from having opinions, nor do we assume he's out to disruptively make a point. Whether or not you agree with Kevin does not determine whether or not he is doing what he believes is right, and in most other cases it appears that he is making good choices. Please stop using these boilerplate keeps, as they are actually disrupting the AfD process to make a point. Cheers, and thank you. lifebaka++ 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Please stop using these boilerplate keeps, as they are actually disrupting the AfD process to make a point." - I think Lifebaka needs to read WP:AGF himself. 86.142.164.55 (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (I edit conflicted with Morbidthoughts below, who says something similar) Dude, when you cite WP:ENT, point out which one of the three points you are bringing it up, and indicate the sources showing that he/she fullfills it, or make a good explanation of what important works she played an significant role in, etc. Just saying "meets WP:ENT" is not good enough if you want to have an effect on the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you make arguments in an AfD that an article satisfies the general notability guidelines or entertainers guidelines, you should probably provide some evidence through reliable sources. For example, when you deprodded the Alex Devine article, I'm wondering where this significant coverage of hers is by reliable sources because trust me, I looked. I also wonder what aspect of ENTERTAINER the article satisfies and whether it can be verified by a reliable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent AfD comment at Zenisha Moktan

Hello!!!!
Please note that people who nominate article for deletion generally know basic notability guidelines. So just saying a particular article meets Wp:GNG or Wp:ENT is not enough, make sure to indicate what part of guidelines does it actually meet. Rescuing an article is not as simple as that.

regards Hitro talk 17:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenisha Moktan

Please reply at above discussion. Just strolling around to vote keep without any point is not an accepted behavior. You are disrupting AfD discussion on Wikipedia. Most of your votes are dubious. Hitro talk 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Chuthya. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hitro talk 15:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

There is a discussion involving you at WP:ANI#User:Chuthya is not assuming good faith. If you are simply going from AFD to AFD and PROD to PROD blindly trying to cancel out a particular user's contributions, that is a violation of the WP:HOUND policy and is blockable disruption - so please stop. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mischaracterization of my actions. Said user has declared off-wiki that he's on a personal crusade to rid the encyclopedia of articles that in his narrow view do not warrant inclusion.[1] He's based his view on a limited interpretation of WP:PORNBIO. I have merely followed his contributions in this area and pointed out the relevant contrary policy that provides an avenue of inclusion. I've only opposed him in circumstances where policy supports a keep vote. Chuthya (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the "blindly" part of my statement doesn't apply, then that's a different matter. You may want to take the advice at that ANI thread and pursue some form of dispute resolution. Wknight94 ^talk 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon & Kate Plus 8

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jon & Kate Plus 8, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Stop. The show will never, ever, ever be in past tense. Ever. Please see WP:MOSTV. It will always be "J&K+8 is" never "J&K+8 was" so stop changing that. Further, saying that the show is over or production has halted is complete original research. TLC has suspended filming the children, not producing the show, until they can talk to the parents. TLC has also never once said the show name "Kate Plus Eight" was no longer valid. They have said they are talking to the parents about the issue of filming. To remove it is also original research. 13² 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Jon & Kate Plus 8. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. I'm upping this to a three. You are NOT assuming good faith in the least. I gave my reasons for changing your edit in the edit summary and CITED all of my information (something you did not do). You turned around and reverted it as vandalism with this edit summary "vandalism, removing cited information." I did no such thing. In fact, your revert removed multiple citations. Further, you slapped me with a 3RR warning when I haven't violated it yet. If you continue, I will bring this behavior to the administrators' attention. You have not bothered to discuss this with me once and that is completely unacceptable and makes it look as though you believe you own the page. I suggest you take a step back, cool down, and discuss this with me. 13² 12:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits appear to be vandalism because you are removing current sourced information about the cancellation of the show. I only removed one citation because leads to a blank page on the TLC website, so removing it is proper. More troubling is that you have rollback and Twinkle rights and appear to be abusing them on an article that has BLP concerns. If you seek discussion, it would do well to not WP:TEMPLAR. Please stop and try to participate in discussion before reverting further. Chuthya (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chuthya. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Speaking of WP:TEMPLAR, you slapped me with a 3RR and accused me of vandalism with zero discussion before I left either of these. In this case, I feel both templates were fully justified. --13² 13:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

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. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Jon & Kate Plus 8. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

@Thirteen squared:

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For cooperating with Thirteen squared on Jon & Kate Plus 8, I award you this left half of a barnstar; Thirteen squared will get the right half. Great work! Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make it, but I like it. Works well for situations where people are cooperating. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain?

Edits such as this, this, and this are troubling. Is it your intent to use that biography of a living person to harass or attack the subject of that article? user:J aka justen (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article posits his notability as a photographer, however it gives few examples other than the Whoopi Goldberg photo. It makes mention of his trip to Israel, but includes none of the photographs he took there, other than the one of himself and the prime minister. The goat photograph was added in good faith and is captioned with the description Shankbone himself lists on Commons. If he finds this an embarassing example of his work, he should edit the description or request the photo's deletion from Commons. It is a freely usable image submitted by the author, so there is no policy reason why you should find its inclusion in the article troubling.

The section I added to talk should not be troubling either. The article makes no mention of Shankbone's rather large contribution in this area. However, instead of being bold and adding that section to the article, I initiated discussion in talk. Personally, I feel the article is not very neutral with regard to all of Shankbone's contributions, but feel it would be controversial to begin including this topic in the article. I do have at least one citation where a contribution by him caused Wikipedia to be banned in Australia.

My question to you is: since my edits are within policy, and are based on contributions by the subject, why are you so quick to assume bad faith and characterize my edits as attacks and harassment? Chuthya (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption of good faith is stretched to its limits by adding a picture of the backside of a goat to a biography of a living person. This is only exacerbated by edits which have no plausible "good faith" explanations, as I said, such as this. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the photograph is submitted under CC by the author. If he finds it questionable then he should request its deletion as the author. There are several photographs of male anatomy by the subject that could be included in the article as well, but you'd be right to say that those would be stretching good faith. I retitled that section as "pornography" because my initial title was a typo. The topic I intended to discuss is his photographic contributions to the gay pornography articles. The discussion was taken to talk before inclusion in the article. Discussion is standard practice before introducing controversial material to any BLP. Again, why would you consider this troubling? Chuthya (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your explanation doesn't wash. A photograph of an animal urinating that has no actual biographical relevance, except that he took the photograph, is clearly not appropriate for a biography of a living person, unless the photograph was notable in its own right (which would likely only occur for an artistic photograph, not an editorial one). There are two broader issues here. The first is that you appear to be motivated to add photographs of animal and male anatomy to the biography of a living person; regardless of whether the photographs were taken by the person in question, they are not notable photographs, and they are not representative of the broader portfolio of his work. Even if we were to ignore that the motivation behind that is suspect beyond any assumption of good faith, the second issue becomes one of reliable sourcing: Wikipedia and Commons are not reliable sources. Attributing the work to him without a secondary reliable source is not in line with wp:blp as it stands today. (As an aside, I have your talk page here on my watchlist, so there's no need to use talkback each time you reply.) user:J aka justen (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His notability rests entirely on his contributions to Wikimedia projects. If the subject saw fit to submit that photograph of his work to Commons, why would you question its inclusion in the article? If you'd like to display a range of his work, I've created a gallery section. If you're questioning the attributability of Commons, then you're casting doubt on the ability of the entire project to remain compliant with GFDL and Creative Commons licenses that require attribution. If you feel such doubt, I invite you to go to Commons and recommend those contributions for deletion. Chuthya (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Per your suggestion, I've raised the issue here. You may wish to comment further there. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked for one day for WP:POINT and WP:BLP violations at article David Shankbone. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I feel that this block was out of process. My edits to the David Shankbone were completely within policy as were my attempts to resolve issues in talk. Chuthya (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edits were clearly disruptive and WP:POINTy. (On a side note, I'm not 100% certain how the word is transcribed into English, but your username looks very similar to a well-known Hindi curse word). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:50, 23 October 2009 (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.

Your edits seem to me to be trying to make a point rather than working toward the best possible version of the article. If you have an opinion about the article, it's simpler for everyone if you just say it clearly rather than making edits and expecting us to guess what your point is. You don't appear to have even tried making your point by stating it clearly on the deletion discussion page. I'll leave the request open for another admin to review, but I'm not feeling that I would be justified in overruling the blocking admin here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Edits? There was one edit to add the picture of the goat taken by Shankbone which was reverted. I did not edit war on this issue, and have not argued for that specific image's inclusion. In what way can this be construed as disruption to prove a point? Chuthya (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tick, tock, tick, tock, timed block.... Chuthya (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Shankbone

This probably wasn't a good idea as your first edit following the expiry of your wp:point block, especially since you previously acknowledged such additions would be controversial and should only be done after discussion. I would suggest you consider only making proposals for changes at Talk:David Shankbone and allow other editors to implement your proposals that gain consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you find that edit objectionable? By your own arguments, it satifies your criteria for inclusion because it includes the subject of the article. Chuthya (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:47, 23 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I agree to discuss prior to any further edits to the David Shankbone article that involve adding images. Chuthya (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You do not appear to understand the reason for your block, which is harrassment of a living person through disruptive edits to their biography. Should you make more disruptive edits to that page, expect to be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 12:31, 24 October 2009 (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.

Comment from blocking admin. Any admin can process this unblock request as they see fit, but I'd also draw their attention to this comment I recently made on WP:AN/I. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone (especially the blocking admin) please explain to me why adding images that the subject of the article contributed under a free use license to the subject's biography with the purpose of illustrating the subject's range of work is considered disruption to make a point? Thanks! Chuthya (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it might help to understand where you are coming from first. Why did you want to add that particular photo to the Shankbone article and, just as important, why was it necessary for you to caption it such that you make prominent reference to the fact that one of the persons in the photo is in the adult film industry? Is your argument that it's a notable photograph, a top notch example of the best of Shankbone's ouevre? Do you think it's important that we have photos of people in BLPs that show the subject on vacation? (And is there a policy on that somewhere?) Is it important to show that Shankbone has been seen in the company of topless men, some of whom are involved in porn, and if so why? You might also answer the same sort of questions about this edit, I believe your first to the article. Again, is this a notable masterwork by Shankbone, repeatedly reprinted in the New York Times and Hobby Farm Magazine? Is the fact that it's taken in Israel the important thing? Is Shankbone particularly known for his photos of goats, or are goats otherwise near and dear to his heart? Or is this part of a series he did on animals taking a piss and we need to have one good example for his BLP, because to do otherwise would be a disservice to readers? Probably not, and to most objective observers the only one that seems to be taking the piss is you, and that's why you were blocked, but by all means have a go at persuading me that you were really trying to improve the encyclopedia with those edits. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first image was placed to illustrate Shankbone's trip to Israel. If you look at the edit history, I did not edit war to keep this image in the article. I was later harassed by User:J on my talk page for this single edit. I offered to this user that discussion should be made before any of Shankbone's controversial images be used in the article as examples of the range of his work. Later he posts a hyperbolic rant at AN/I and you block me. If this single edit is the reason for the original block, then please tell me what you were trying to prevent with this block. It's an image that Shankbone took, released under a free use license, and apparently doesn't object to its inclusion at commons. How on earth could its inclusion in his biography be construed as an attack or harassment if the author himself feels that this is an adequate enough example of his work for it to be displayed on a top six website?

The same holds true for the second image edit. It was discussed in talk that the only images that should be included were ones that include Shankbone or have been re-used by other publications. This image would satisfy the first requirement. Shankbone's coverage of the pornographic industry and his contributions to the project have been extensive. Again, why would he find inclusion of these images to be an attack or harassment if he felt these were worthy of inclusion at commons? As the article goes, it woefully under-represents Shankbone's contributions to the project in this area, especially the impact it has had in having portions of the site blocked in a certain western country.

An explanation of why you feel the inclusion of any image taken by the subject and its inclusion in the article is a WP:BLP violation would be appreciated. We are in a unique position with this subject to display a range of images that the subject has been proud enough to share with the world. Any inclusion of his contributions should be considered an improvement to the article. On what grounds should an editor be blocked for including any of his free use images in the article? Chuthya (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly think a picture of a goat taking a piss "illustrates Shankbone's trip to Israel" then you have a strange way of viewing the world, but of course I don't think you're being serious when you say that (doesn't the picture of Shankbone with Peres, which was already there, kind of do that?). The fact that an editor uploads a bunch of images to Commons has no bearing on whether we include those in said editor's BLP article or not, and it certainly does not tell us which ones we choose to include if we do. Your first contribution to the Shankbone article was to pick a picture of a goat urinating and your next one was of a vacation photo that allows you to link Shankbone to a pornographer (do you have secondary sources extensively discussing that link? I didn't think so). I think that pretty much reveals your agenda here, and your comment above does nothing to change my view of why you are here. If you actually want to contribute constructively to the project try staying away from the Shankbone article for awhile (there's lots else to do!), and also try changing your username since a username based on a "vulgar" word (even in a foreign language!) is cause for an indefinite block in and of itself (terribly clever name though, and that "slap" TV show sounds super-terrific). This has wasted enough of my time already so I won't be checking back here anytime soon—feel free to post a second unblock request if that's important to you, but it's more likely that whoever wonders by will block you indefinitely rather than unblocking. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, it's just a name. No more offensive than someone interpreting your name to be an allusion to a large phallus. Chuthya (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep your contributions show that you are not an easterner I'm Sorry for not assuming good faith--NotedGrant Talk 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The article in which I am alleged to have made disruptive edits has been deleted. Therefore, the preventive nature of my block is now moot. Chuthya (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope. They don't let people out of jail because the store they robbed burns down, do they? — Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2009 (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.

From WP:BLOCK: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Jails are for punishment. If the article no longer exists, there's no longer a reason for the block. I'd like to participate in the discussion at WP:DRV if it gets posted there and the discussion at WP:BLP. Chuthya (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get this, do you? You edited disruptively on one article; some of us feel you could easily do it again on another page given your behavior. To continue my metaphor and make sure you understand it ... jail is as much about prevention as punishment. While the robber is locked up, he can't rob any more stores. And likewise, while the disruptive editor is blocked, he can't edit disruptively on other articles. And if the disruptive editor's talk page is protected for the duration of the block, s/he can't waste administrators' time for that duration.

Look, this is a relatively short block. I'm sure that it will expire in plenty of time for you to go contribute to the DRV and get blocked again if that's what you seem to want to do. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Blueboy 96 20:23, 29 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

The blocking admin is unclear in his reasons for imposing this indefinite block. I do not see any discussion at WP:ANI or WP:AN. Blocking admin does not indicate what vandalism he's referring to. Chuthya (talk) 5:54 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

OK. Unfortunately, blaming the admin doesn't really address your behavior. Right after your block expired, you went right back to disruptively editing material related to David Shankbone. TN X Man 22:51, 29 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I had already been blocked for 72 hours for the alleged vandalism. This block is punative and vindictive in nature. My contributions do not show a history of abuse. Chuthya (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per comment from blocking admin below and username violation. As I promised above, this show is over. I am protecting the page now. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2009 (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.

A note from the blocking admin--the user was indefblocked for a general history of disruption, as well as the fact that his username is a violation of the username policy. I meant to leave a more detailed note earlier. Blueboy 96 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an active editor at UAA, I would like to ask what the username violation is. It's not obvious. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a word in Hindi I'm sure it violates the username policy of wp--NotedGrant Talk 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. 01:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 01:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]