User talk:Sanam001

Welcome!

Hello, Sanam001, 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, like Kaplingad Narayanan Namboodiri, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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, 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnattam/Krishnanattam

Hi,

Saw that you created the page Krishnattam. There is already a page Krishnanattam on the art form. That I believe is the right form of the word (കൃഷ്ണനാട്ടം - Hopefully you read Malayalam). Don't you think these could be merged? -- Raziman T V (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i definitely think so.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Linguisticgeek (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Linguisticgeek (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nambiar menon

Hello,and please firstly sign your posts after comments add this symbol ~ 4 times after a comment and secondly please make edits that are that sourced i.e.cite your sources books website etc.whatever you are writin on the talk page is original research.Nairs have always been a single entity please don't forget that.the subcastes of nairs are based on social standing and not on ethnic or antrophological differences.Take for example the travancore royal family they don't intermarry with nambudiri brahmins so are they not of nair origin.certain customs in certain parts of kerala are different please don't exxagerate them.Linguisticgeek (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudra can't rule or hold arms according to vedic law.Travancore family does not in anyways intermarry with nambudiri's.they only intermarry with the kolathiri kings of north.they were sacred threads.making statments on talk pages is original sources.cite your sources or be ready to face a ban for disruptive editing.for info see Samanta Kshatriya page.Linguisticgeek (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and one more thing your are mixing up cochin hypergamous relations with the travancore family.Tranvacore families are called southern kolathiri's not just like that.Linguisticgeek (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Sadasivan is a well known propagandist.secondly they talk about samanta not the samanta kshatriya.and thirdly the sudra criterion of a nambudiri is invalid.they treat all non nambudiri brahmins including the embrandiri and tamil iyers as sudra,are your going to go write that on the Iyer and Shivalli Brahmins page that nambudiri,the holier than thou brahmins think of them as sudras.Linguisticgeek (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

122.172.117.68 this is the i.p. adress you are using to write comments on talk pages and then using your user name to get writing on nambiar and menon.you are editing from ernakulam and then you are claiming you are from north malabar and a nambiar at that.this is sockpuppetery.get it.this discussion is invalid sadasivan book has been read by me and it is propaganda read communist.i am warning you last time you make any disruptive editing and make statments without citing proper reliable sources.you will be banned happy editing.and one more thing knowledge is salvation not propaganda.bye i won't reply anymoreLinguisticgeek (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Kolathunadu.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Kolathunadu.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Axxn (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 12:25, 10 February 2010 (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).

Sanam001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User Anandks007 is repeatedly engaging in edit wars inspite of invitations for discussion , You may kindly refer history logs of the articles to compare versions and the refusal of Anandks007 from coming to discussion. Therefore dispute resolution is becoming difficult

Decline reason:

It takes 2 to edit war, and both parties have been temporarily blocked. This is not an attempt at discussion, it's a public lambasting of another editor. If you need a third opinion or something similar, they are all steps in dispute resolution. Other than actual vandalism, there is no excuse for breaking the WP:3RR rules. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 10 February 2010 (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.

Notes: Even after my warning at WP:AN3 three hours earlier not to continue, you've had at least 11 reverts on various articles in the last 24 hours:

Six reverts on Nair
Two reverts on Thampan, and
Three reverts on Menon (Nair subcaste).

Further, the rules on seeking consensus and use of discussion rather than revert in a dispute applies to you both, see WP:NOTTHEM. NJA (t/c) 12:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do i do if a user is refusing to engage in discussion ? and is misusing his roll back privileges ?

I've discussed the rollback issue with him. As for discussion, you both are advised to follow the step-by-step guidance offered at WP:DR, as blocks will increase in length for continued edit warring, regardless of whether of not they're 3RR. NJA (t/c) 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i will wait for the unblock. Kindly compare the versions and contents and subject topics.What options do i have when a user reverts and refuses to engage in discussion for dispute resolution and continue to revert for the pupose of maintaining peacock terms and usages in a wiki article ?

Unfortunately I am unable to mediate this dispute, however if you carefully read the guidance, I assure you there are very real ways to get help when you're in dispute with another user about their edits and content. Take the time during this block to read that completely as it is well written and will be helpful. NJA (t/c) 13:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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).

Sanam001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

31 hours lapsed and hence wish to take the next step in recommended step-by-step guidance offered at WP:DR

Decline reason:

Your block will expire automatically. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2010 (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.

Er, your block expires automatically in 1/2 hour ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks

I see a change date and in time displayed to my block time display from 11 feb to 12 feb is there a reason ?

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ Nayar – a caste from the South Indian state of Kerala.

For the Mediation Committee, Seddon ^talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I understand that it has been rejected because the user Anandks007 is not willing to participate. Unfortunately , the reason he has cited is only a pretext as WP: 30 has been attempted. The content issue is also of complex nature and requires expert arbitration. When the other user may not be interested what other options do i have ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.147.157.18 (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of Sanam001

Hello Sanam001. Sanam001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sanam001 (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2010 (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).

Sanam001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am unable to contribute to wikipedia articles owing to a block on my edit that has been placed as a result of an allegation by User Ananks007 refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Menon1000/Archive The investigation does not reveal that me user sanam001 is a sockpuppet and corresponds to other block of users refered there and therefore I kindly request that my edit rights be restored and that my block be removed as sanam001 is not the same as the other block of users mentioned there

Decline reason:

On the contrary, there was a WP:CHECKUSER finding of confirmed sockpuppetry cited in the decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (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 am unable to contribute to wikipedia articles owing to a block on my edit that has been placed as a result of an allegation by User Ananks007 refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Menon1000/Archive The investigation does not reveal that me user sanam001 is a sockpuppet and corresponds to other block of users refered there and therefore I kindly request that my edit rights be restored and that my block be removed as sanam001 is not the same as the other block of users mentioned there

{{unblock|There seems to be a block due to confusion arising from mixing user sanam001 among a list of sockpuppets in bad faith. The initial list of suspected sockpuppets in the complaint by Anandks007 refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Menon1000/Archive . I (sanam001) was falsely included among these suspects in bad faith by Anandks007 due to earlier disputes with him. After WP: checkuser, from the initial list , confirmed sockpuppetry were cited in the decision only for users Menon1000 , Nair1000 ,Sinha100 ,Nambudiri12345 and not me (user sanam001). There was no evidence against me (sanam001) . Sanam001 is not the same as confirmed sockpuppets Menon1000 , Nair1000 ,Sinha100 ,Nambudiri12345 . Kindly do re-check the fine details of this WPcheckuser and redress my grievience arising due to mixing my name among a list of confirmed sockpuppets in a false accusation}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Checkuser note. I should probably have made it clearer, but I did not check Sanam001 against the other users at the time: the rationale was IMO too weak to warrant the check. I guess Julian got confused because of the username similarity. After running the check against everyone involved, I don't think Sanam001 is related to the sockpuppet. I am lifting the block temporarily and will notify Julian. -- Luk ^talk 16:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: -- Luk ^talk

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

March 01, 2010

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malayala Sudra

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is collaboratively edited. Reverting the edits of every user disagreeing with you is not a proper way to enhance the article. Please, both of you, keep a cool head and discuss your disagreements on the talk page before getting blocked for edit warring. Thanks. -- Luk ^talk 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kindly advice me after looking at the edit history of the article Malayala Sudra after its creation and the edit pattern by these two users Anandks007 and user: Suresh.Varma 123.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayala_Sudra&action=history

Invitations for content dispute is not being taken up. what should i do next. It seems like a userbased bias by these two users in co-operation after the creation of the Malayala sudra article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Suresh.Varma.123#Take_a_look_at_Sanam.27s_latest_vandalism

Kindly advice

User biased collective edit wars in an effort to mobbing

{{adminhelp}} This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123in malayala sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution. [1]. The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here [2]. I realize that it takes two to create edit wars and there seems to be active recruitment of content disagreeing users to initiate edit wars with me by User:Anandks007 :Neither am I able to take the dispute resolution to formal mediation while simultaneously being dragged into edit wars by User:Anandks007 and User:Suresh.Varma.123 in bad faith.I have been continuosly trying invain to address the root cause [3] What options do I have to redress my grievience and stop this mobbing ?

March 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Malayala Sudra. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I donot contest the block and sincerely beleive that my block was well deserved for my present conduct. However, as a personal favour i would like you to read the following paragraph of my profile [4]. Thanking you in advance.--Sanam001 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But please read also ref 3 carefully because Sanam001 just tell what he thinks useful for his propaganda in his homepage.90.46.32.29 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Request unblock of IP and user on grounds of expiry of 24 hour period. Thanks in advance}}

This account is not directly blocked at this time. If you still can't edit, follow the directions below. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.

If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are able to edit the sandbox, you are not blocked from editing. Either the autoblock on your IP address has already expired, or you weren't blocked in the first place. Either way, you can resume editing.
If you are still blocked, follow the directions below:
1. Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Unblock request" section.
2. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page, and click save.
  If you cannot edit your own talk page, use the Unblock Ticket Request System to make your request.

{{adminhelp}} Kindly go through in detail the developments at [5] Thanks in advance.--Sanam001 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This matter will be dealt with on the admin noticeboard; there is no need to request further admin assistance here as well. Chzz ► 04:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Linguisticgeek (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please do something regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Smashville^talk 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kaplingad Narayanan Nambudiri

A tag has been placed on Kaplingad Narayanan Nambudiri requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Linguisticgeek (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block discussion

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. EyeSerene^talk 11:29, 9 March 2010 (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).

Sanam001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block unsubstantiated in view of my pending issue at WP ANI named sanam001 requesting redressal of grevience

Decline reason:

No reason for unblocking given. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2010 (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).

Sanam001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unblocking or shortening of a block is requested because a pre-existing issue for meat puppetry assault against me fuelling edit war exists unresolved by adminstrators. I request the admin to differentiate between Content dipute and Vandalism. Independently as the fundamental Wikipedia principle is that it takes two to create edit war and my complaint is pending in ANI and that such blocks have been not issued on users who have engaged in meat-puppetry to create this edit war situation User Anandks007 or on co-perpetrators User: Suresh.Varma.123 and Anandks007 a tentative cabal stubborn to my NPOV invitation, I kindly request unblocking or shortening of a block after review of ANI topic sanam001 requesting redressal of grievience and administrator comment

Decline reason:

Please discuss how you intend to change your own behavior in the future. Blaming others in an unblock request usually gives no result at all, unless the admin made a simple mistake, which is not the case here. See WP:GAB for more advice. If you don't make a serious unblock request that fully complies with our policies, your access to the talk page may be disabled. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2010 (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.

Thanks, not necessary as i donot intent to make further unblock requests. My study is complete on documenting experiences of a novel editor using sanam001 as an investigatory model for a new editor (with tentative above average content knowledge advantage) facing an established cluster of users who understand practical consequences of their emergent behavior in a self-defined territoy within the wikipedia. I will compile a report and send it to necessary internal organization within wikipedia that may be involved in evolving futuristic guidelines and regulatory practices. I thank all the administrators and apologize for the inconvenience i may have put them during the process. I strongly beleive that my edit-interactogram data as sanam001 will be useful for developing futuristic regulatory structures for the success of collective-collaborative encyclopedia.I also apologize and thank other users who may have un-wittingly been part of it and have interacted with me; without them as a model i would not have acquired adequate understanding of cluster-behavior-patterns used by established user-coccuses to "muscle out" new editors who threaten consequences of their collective emergent behavior, within the respective article-sphere. Nayar article-sphere was simply a sample for the study as it is just convenient to conduct such a study in areas of my expertise and birth. Anyone interested in interacting with me at a personal level may mail me at sanam001_wiki@yahoo.com Sanam001 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop your BS and get out of here OK. What do you think of other editors? Your tricks might work once or twice. But don't think that you are going to fool everyone forever. Anyway thanks for vandalizing the pages continuously for the past several months. You will have a legendary status amongst the wikipedia vandals. 202.83.178.126 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Malayala Sudra

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Malayala Sudra. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malayala Sudra. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Randu illom vargam

The article Randu illom vargam has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There simply doesn't seem to be either context or enough English to work out what the subject of this article is, let alone what it's trying to tell us. I'm not especially stupid, but my mind is still boggling from trying to read and understand.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 20:24, 20 April 2010 (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).

Sanam001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My earlier blocking was due to repeated edit wars I engaged in to generate edit-interactogram by simulating an environment akin to new user vs an established cabal in ethno-anthropological article. My study was completed one year ago and I have been inactive for a year since. I would like to now resume use of my account as a normal user. Thanks in advance.

Decline reason:

Performing unauthorized ethnographic or behaviourial studies on Wikipedia, especially of the type you purportedly and aggressively undertook is not permitted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:21, 17 February 2012 (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.