User talk:Ellalan

December 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Dravidian parties, you may be blocked from editing. —SpacemanSpiff 14:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu. —SpacemanSpiff 14:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is not a personal WP:SOAPBOX for you. If you continue to use it as such then you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 14:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 16:51, 5 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

The administrator who has blocked me has done so due to personal intentions. The last four edits by me were correction edits which means factfully wrong information mentioned was corrected. My edits before that was already undone by the administrator who has blocked me and I did not make any further edits there till I find citations. I am clearly there to contribute to Wikipedia. This particular administrator who blocked me could have personal intentions with the misrepresented facts that I corrected in my last four edits, otherwise there is no need to block a user who has not involved in an edit war. My request to unblock me and initiate process to withdraw admin previleges of this biased administrator

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.
Particularly take note of WP:NOTTHEM. —DoRD (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have read the guide to appealing. Clearly the blocking by the administrator was unfair. I have joined as a contributor for just a couple of days and with very few edits on a given topic it can't be said that I used it as a soap box within just two days. I am clearly there to contribute in a broad way but can only do on a subject at a given point of time. The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption because the edits before my last 4 edits were already undone without blocking me and I didn't make a single edit there after that as more cautious approach would be required although I may have been right with the edits. The last four edits were just a small single word correction of the same incorrect fact in 4 different articles. I was blocked after the last four edits which were correct edits. If you are declining the unblock request please type a small good reason instead of pasting the template

Decline reason:

With these edits you introduced your own personal analysis into Wikipedia. Note that you describe the central government as 'looting'. If you were unblocked, you would doubtless continue editing in this manner, so I'm declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2016 (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.

The last administrator who reviewed is also biased (from Srilanka).