User talk:Sudarshanazhwan

January 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Agnihotram Ramanuja Tatachariar have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Agnihotram Ramanuja Tatachariar was changed by Sudarshanazhwan (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.876628 on 2024-01-13T09:07:01+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Nilathingal Thundam Perumal temple, you may be blocked from editing. Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Narayana. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remove what is unnecessary. I do things with enough information backed up. I am uninterested in knowing my deity from outsiders. Sudarshanazhwan (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Perumal (deity). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are of a different religion. We are not interested in believing what colonial scholars think. If you are that much interested, you are free to add those to your religious matters. Its better to stay back. I am a Vaishnava and I know more than you. Sudarshanazhwan (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we aren't interested in what editor thinks. We only care about sources meeting WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Your experience and knowledge on its own, like mine, is of no value in an encyclopedia that isn't religious based. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 21 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked because I remove information that provides false knowledge and confusion and feed right information on it. Hope I would get unblocked so that I could add right and most useful information thereby contributing to Wikipedia

Decline reason:

No, you were blocked for "persistent tendentious editing while ignoring Wikipedia's core principles". You'll need to fully address that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:18, 21 January 2024 (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.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

@Doug Weller and Bishonen: another one... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent tendentious editing while ignoring Wikipedia's core principles.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 13:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarshanazhwan (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking me. I wish for your success in blocking people who provide authentic information. Sudarshanazhwan (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudarshanazhwan See my comments above. You, like everyone else, have to follow our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 21 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hoping to be neutral in future

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. Yamla (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Understood the reason for being blocked. Hoping to contribute to wikipedia and be non tendentious in future.

Decline reason:

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2024 (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.

Are you sure you want that for your unblock request? It clearly and obviously will be declined and doesn't come close to addressing the problems. See WP:GAB. If you wish to make an appropriate unblock request, please remove your current open request. Otherwise, please expect to lose talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: You were right. Life's too short @Sudarshanazhwan:, you appear unable to address the reasons for your block. I guess this sums up matters. You wrote, "I think you are of a different religion. We are not interested in believing what colonial scholars think. If you are that much interested, you are free to add those to your religious matters. Its better to stay back. I am a Vaishnava and I know more than you.." Very well. My standard decline to follow.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. If you do so for a third time, you will lose access to this talk page. --Yamla (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This includes modifying existing declined unblock requests. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked by Bishonen for persistent tendentious editing while ignoring Wikipedia's core principles. I would contribute to wikipedia rather than indulging in tendentious editing. It would be great if I get unblocked. I was found indulging in removal of paragraphs and addition of information that I felt would suit the most.

Decline reason:

What edits do you want to make, if unblocked? You should read WP:V and include sources. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2024 (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.