User talk:Ihaveabandonedmychild
Ihaveabandonedmychild, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Ihaveabandonedmychild! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
January 2021
[edit]
Hello, I'm Tayi Arajakate. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kongunadu Makkal Desia Katchi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I am adding the citation Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia!I'm Suneye1, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts: |
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
Hey Tayi, there are YouTube videos in Tamil.I am not sure if they pass as reliable sources Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Keerthy Suresh, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Diff: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Keerthy Suresh. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. SUN EYE 1 06:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Mr vandal
[edit]Hello mr vandal or son of vandal. I never ever come across a low 3rd right fellow in my life Mr pumkin feitish, whose only aim in life to mock others. I tried to make Wikipedia, a conservative one. But u are like mosquito, which come in sleeping time and escapes when we are aware. Kindly, please stop making edits in Wikipedia for wiki's sake. Finally , I have to say one last thing Mr pumkin feitish, I will not stop on editing Wikipedia because of your bullying Faster edits (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
You could have a Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
You could have avoided profanities and expressed your disagreements with civility. I have no intention to degrade anybody or anyone. I am here to only contribute to this site wherever possible.. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what do you imply here by 'bullying'.It such an untenable accusation and too strong a word to describe a differing viewpoint Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Also the very fact that you openly admit that you intend to make Wikipedia a conservative website,in and of itself, is against the spirit of Wiki community which has toiled years to build this site as a dispassionate medium of knowledge.Admins, please keep a watchful eye on this user. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Must Need to know where to ask citation
[edit]It is not possible to provide citation for each and every line. It is the local information. Since it is a fish shop , I have provided the citation for its location there. But I don't know what do you expected. What are u expecting from the fish market? A pumpkin . It is a fish shop, the fishes may be caught in that river or from any other water bodies and brought there and sold. What is there for citation? . Faster edits (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Citation was asked to verify if that market exists in first place.Citation ensures the provided info is accurate and unambiguous. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Indent
[edit]Hi, I've indented your recent comments. Please go through WP:INDENT and also don't forget to WP:SIGN your comments. Regards, SUN EYE 1 18:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Poor grammar
[edit]If you keep adding problematic grammar and typography as you've done repeatedly at Keerthy Suresh including here, you may have your editing privileges pulled. Nobody else is required to clean up after you, particularly when on two additional occasions,[2][3] the sloppy content you added back contains information that already exists in the lede. Note also that when you are reverted, your recourse is to seek consensus for the change you want made, not to keep reverting. Quickly familiarise yourself with our policy on edit-warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
There was nothing sloppy except an inadvertent typographical error which could have been corrected had you wished. I am still confused as to what grammatical error my edits had that remained unchecked after your first call. Even if there was a grammatical error, is that enough of a reason to completely expurgate the edit? I see plenty of editors who make efforts to correct grammar with no qualms,instead of reverting the edit completely and I am pretty sure their approach resonates well with Wiki's editing policies.Tell me,why it has to be your way of dealing ungrammatical sentences when others don't find them problematic enough to be completely removed? If you are seeking for justification of the edit, you should have asked in the edit summary itself as to how the added info fits coherently into the page instead of deleting entire statement with an unqualified reason . As for the justification-The information very well fits with the lede. Many actors' pages have information regarding their style of acting,typecast, preferences of genre,roles,etc. in their intros. Keerthy has preference of working solely in the roles that doesn't involve wearing revealing clothes. If you think you can rephrase it better, rephrase it. If you think the edit still doesn't warrant a place in that page, then create a discussion in talk section of that page and register your contention. I will register mine. If adding a new info requires consensus,then deleting an info without a proper reason should require consensus. I am not here to make an edit war. Let's open a discussion and take other editors' opinions to solve the disagreement amicably, if you are still not convinced. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the duplicate entry by myself and it was an inadvertent mistake. Don't make that rookie mistake a red herring for the point of contention. Peace! Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The content that begins "She won the National Film Award for Best Actress for portraying actress Savitri...", exists in the first paragraph. You added it to the bottom of the second paragraph twice as detailed above. I fixed it in this edit. When you edit, you should use the Show preview / Show changes options to proofread your work. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Warning
[edit]You don't seem to be interested in the collaborative policies of the encyclopaedia. Stop terming edits as vandalism when they are not. If you continue to do this then your editing privileges will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 06:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
But is it allowed to remove statements with proper citation for no good reason? How does that sit well with Wiki policy? Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you can't understand WP:BLP then you shouldn't be editing here. My warning to you stands. —SpacemanSpiff 09:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If you don't have the patience to listen to other's viewpoint before jumping the gun, you have no business in correcting others.Put it on admin noticeboard and let other admins take charge of the matter. You are missing wood for the trees. The editor removed the entire paragraph without looking out for the correct cited information. I restored only the statement that was correct. How does that qualify as violation? Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Once again, you've been explained various things by multiple people and either you don't understand or don't want to. Both of which are a problem for the encyclopaedia. You are clearly here with an agenda and are editing according to that. —SpacemanSpiff 16:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Completely hogwash!I don't want to rebut as your accusation isn't even relevant to our discussion .I don't want to engage you further. Let's close this discussion here and now, Mr. SpacemanSpiff Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Put it up on the Admin noticeboard? The most common reason someone would do that is a non-Admin asking for you to be blocked. Both SpacemanSpiff and I have no need to go to a noticeboard to block you. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
And what would be the reason to block me? Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is a strange question. Did you actually not notice what SpacemanSpiff warned you about? OK, I'll repeat it: your lack of interest in the collaborative policies of the encyclopaedia. Terming edits as vandalism when they are not. Violating the policy concerning living people. Editing with an agenda, meaning not editing neutrally. If you continue to do these things, you will be blocked — "your editing privileges will be revoked", as SpacemanSpiff puts it. Hope this helps. BTW, please use colons to indent your replies in a conversation, per WP:INDENT, to make it easier for other people to read. Bishonen | tålk 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC).
- Did you even inspect my edits before commenting here?Of all the accusations he made, only wrongfully tagging an edit as "vandalism" was right. I did not know what constitutes a vandalism by Wiki standards and accused another user for vandalism but I don't think it warrants an edit ban. Few edits I made on living persons were challenged but I did not restore it as other users objected it(had debates on it tough). But none of those edits were libelous. Remaining accusations ,he made are plainly absurd.
- Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hello again, please indent your replies on talk pages as Bishonen asked you to do. This is a standard convention and it makes discussion threads easier to follow. Please see WP:TOPPOST. As previously noted by myself, other editors are not required to clean up after you, but I have indented your reply for you. Unrelated, I want to point out that in a very short time you have drawn the attention of four administrators, all of whom have tried to explain community standards to you, and all of whom you have resisted. This is not the typical pattern for new editors who are here to build an encyclopedia. Most yield and adjust. When you visit a new culture and someone asks you to take your shoes off and respect the local customs, it's wise to do so. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Important information
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 14:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC).
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 14:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC).
Your thread has been archived
[edit]|
|
Hi Ihaveabandonedmychild! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
January 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 08:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Could you explain for what edit this block was put on? Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
User:SpacemanSpiff Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Repeated BLP violations -- three times for the same edit. If you say you don't know why something is a BLP violation then use this time to understand our BLP policies. —SpacemanSpiff 08:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Kaduvetti Guru is not a living person. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I am assuming you are doing with good faith. But the reason you provided is impertinent.Neither did I add anything on my own. I just merely overturned the edit by previous user and asked to add citation needed tag. Did you even read the edit summary? Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your block notice explains everything to you. You kept restoring the same BLP violation three times over the past few days. If this behavior continues after your block expires then your next block will be longer. I'm done here. —SpacemanSpiff 08:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Please post the administration board link. I want to appeal against this block Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You are not done unless it is a case of malice. You need to give the right reason.It is not a BLP violation. The subject is dead . I am waiting for you to give proper source of Wiki policy I have violated. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Ihaveabandonedmychild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is not a BLP violation.Kaduvetti Guru is dead. I just overturned the disruptive editing of an anonymous user and asked to put up "citation needed" tag before deleting the entire statement. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The article is about a deceased person, but the edit you have been edit warring to restore is about a living person. BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
As this is not going to stop:
Ihaveabandonedmychild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is not a BLP violation.Kaduvetti Guru is dead. I just overturned the disruptive editing of an anonymous user and asked to put up "citation needed" tag before deleting the entire statement. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It appears the problem is this edit at Kaduvetti Guru which makes claims about the living and named daughter and son—those claims are strong yet do not appear to be verified in the references, one of which is also tagged as possibly unreliable (it also does not exist). No understanding of the problem has been shown and no reason it would not be repeated has been given. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
Ihaveabandonedmychild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The "living person" doesn't even have a Wiki biography. There is no citation in Wiki universe regarding his existence. How do you even know if he ever existed?I was merely reverting the edit by another user(if anything the other IP should be banned too), who removed the statement without giving it sufficient time to be backed up by a reliable source ,and did not add anything on my own. I don't know why it is wrong to give an edit sufficient time to be proved. I just wanted "citation needed" tag to be added
Decline reason:
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand WP:BLP and I'm tempted to extend the block indefinitely. Listen to what you have been told, over and over and over again. Your edit was inappropriate. Until you understand why, you should not edit on Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
[edit]
The following topic ban now applies to you:
indefinitely topic banned from editing anything related to Vanniyar or biographies that are in any way connected to Vanniyar (broadly construed)
You have been sanctioned repeatedly editing in violation of policies in this area
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. —SpacemanSpiff 09:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I neither have edit access to your talk page nor the noticeboard. I don't think you are doing it in good faith. I want other admins to review the case. Please give editing access to Admin noticeboard. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
User: SpacemanSpiff give me access to Admin noticeboard. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Other administrators will see your request. As I said, BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia; if an edit is about a living person, even on an article that is not, it must be sourced and cannot be allowed to remain even with a citation needed tag. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot User:331dot for the clarification. My request on this thread pertains to the permanent ban on Edit access to Vanniyar related pages. I don't think it is warranted. Also, "anything related to Vanniyars" is too broad and vague a term to make a meaningful sense of what pages would qualify as Vanniyar related pages. For example, Vanniyars are group of "humans". Does this mean I am banned to edit Homo Sapiens page? This is nearly an all-encompassing term and can be wrongfully extended to entire Wiki universe. The admin User:SpacemanSpiff has done a shoddy job as he did not give proper justifications for the ban nor did has he clarified the scope of the ban in terms of the number of pages this ban applies to. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Riight; if you're banned from editing about birches, it must mean you're banned from editing about all trees. And if you're banned from editing about trees, it must mean you are banned from editing about all organisms and, indeed, about the universe. So any ban, however limited, means you're banned from the "entire WIKI universe". See Fallacy of the undistributed middle. I have removed your access to adding more bad-faith objections to this page. Bishonen | tålk 11:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC).
January 2021
[edit]
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Topic ban violations
[edit]You are topic banned from anything related to Vanniyar and biographies that are in any way connected to Vanniyar, as you have been clearly told, and have made a foolish comment on.[4] Kaduvetti Guru and S. Ramadoss are very obviously connected to Vanniyar, so you should never edit those articles nor their talkpages, as you did here and here.You have been blocked for two weeks for violating your topic ban. I believe you know how to appeal a block, since you have recently done it several times. Bishonen | tålk 16:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC).
- I was aware I am banned to edit encyclopedia related to Vanniyars but did not realize I was banned to edit even talk pages. Thanks for notifying it. Also be civil and do not use rude language. Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL and avoid using belittling words like "foolish". Be a responsible admin and do not violate the very rules that you want normal editors like me to follow.
- Regards Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I guess you didn't look up WP:TBAN despite being urged to. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC).
Hi User:Yamla, I am tagging you here as I find no other way to draw attention of another admin as I am currently facing an edit ban. Are admins allowed to misuse their power and violate the policies that are ,in principle,applicable to everyone on Wikipedia without facing any repurcussions? I would expect some form of punishment to the User:Bishonen who have been incivil and rude to me. Please read through this discussion thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging doesn't work if you don't sign your posts. It also doesn't work if you modify the comment, so adding a signature after you've already saved, doesn't help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- So I interpret that my last comment won't draw the attention of User:Yamla? I am tagging him here again so that he can follow this discussion.
- Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Admins are not permitted to misuse their power. While you are blocked, you need to focus only on your actions. When you are not blocked, you are free to bring a case in an appropriate forum. For personal attacks, WP:NPA has more details. In my opinion, Bishonen has gone out of their way to provide you useful information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but note I'm only looking at the interactions visible on this page. You may see something I don't, in which case you are free to bring a case. Be warned, WP:BOOMERANG would apply. --Yamla (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ihaveabandonedmychild: Please start formatting your talk page responses with proper indentation. I have cleaned up your comment for you. See also WP:TPG#Non-compliance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
—SpacemanSpiff 14:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
[edit] Hello, I'm Vinegarymass911. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User:Emdad Tafsir have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
[edit]In this edit on Shdjaoalxmx's talk page you made a racist attack, asserting that as a presumed Palli (Vanniyar) Shdjaoalxmx would worship criminals Veerappan & Auto Shankar. I'm blocking you indefinitely for your personal attack as I believe you need to commit to avoiding caste/race issues in future.
This also touches on your AE prohibition from editing on Vanniyar matters, which it appears you have started to ignore,
- May 2 on 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, Special:Diff/1021036563
- May 19 on Pattali Makkal Katchi, Special:Diff/1023973642
- May 23 on Talk:List of political parties in India, Special:Diff/1024657123
- Jun 5, your Vanniyar-focussed attack on Shdjaoalxmx.
SpacemanSpiff, how does this sit with regard to AE? - Cabayi (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cabayi: This has been going on for far too long and it is clear that he has understood the scope of the ban as well as why it's needed, just that he doesn't want to follow it or our standard policies. I think this block is much needed. —SpacemanSpiff 03:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Ihaveabandonedmychild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do agree with the defiance of the ban on Vanniyar topics but the edits were done in good faith and was supported by verified sources. Although I deserve ban for it, I would request you to make it definite. As far as the edit that Vanniyars worship Veerappan is concerned, this was done to seek an opinion from the user(I assumed they are a Vanniyar as they were obsessed with Vanniyar related politics) to make an edit in Vanniyar page. Veerappan is indeed worshipped by Vanniyars. See the article, https://www.newsdirectory3.com/fans-at-veerappans-tomb-crores-of-savings-underground-veerappan/, so it should not be considered an insult when I am referring to truth. Again, this was asked in good faith,and not to insult the Vanniyars or the specific user. I am perfectly aware I deserve the ban for violation of topic ban but make it less severe.Again, I hate lawyering but even the edit in dispute,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1026942013, I did not imply the user worships Veerappan, rather his clan or community worships Veerappan although I should have avoided speculating the user's communal identity(I learnt today it is against Wiki's policy). I know I have violated the rule but this should be a good faith edit as I did not insult the user but rather implied that Vanniyars worship Veerappan which is truth anyway(See the link). Please apply block for moderate duration for topic ban and absolve me from personal attack Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am seeing violations of topic bans, and even worse in the forms of insults and attacks. This is an ongoing pattern so I believe the indefinite during is appropriate. Please note that indefinite does not mean forever, just the the duration is not defined. It is possible that you may have this block reconsidered in the future.
I would wait at least 6 months before asking. I should also warn you that trying to explain why your actions were not an insult or that they were the truth is not the way to go about it. I see no reason disagree with this block. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
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.