User talk:Ved036

Hello Ved the disguised warrior, why did you have to make a disguised delete of the open comment: By all means the Ezhavas have only engaged in professions that have dignity of labour. The caste surname of a certain community in Kerala itself, by of course olden sayings, meant that these guys were lying on the verandah's of their wife's house like the watchdog at night! Toddy tapping is a lot more dignified agricultural job to do during the day. So don't prompt me to say the rest that will go down in history of the origination of the warrior's family name.

It is just the singular case of someone doing a mischief and posting the blame on the other.--Ved from Victoria Institutions 09:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You recently reposted 50,000 kilobytes of old discussion to the above page. Please refrain from doing this, as it is a waste of server space and makes the talk pages very large. If the previous discussion is in the archives, please provide a link to it instead of copying the entire discussion. If it is not in the archive, provide a link to the version of the talk page that contains the old discussion. You may wish to re-read Wikipedia:talk page and Wikipedia:talk page guidelines. If you have any questions, drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks. Natalie 12:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean when you say your writing was filled with dangerous themes. Could you provide a diff that shows this vandalism, please? Natalie 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone changes a talk page post, you can revert it. Just make sure you revert to an old version instead of just reposting again and again. You can also warn the person who edited your post. Can you please provide a diff? That will show who made the changes and what they did. Natalie 08:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is no way to make the posts un-editable - the software technology that Wikipedia is built on just isn't advanced enough to allow it. You'll just have to revert any editing of your posts. Instructions can be found at Help:Reverting. As to whether or not you have multiple accounts, I don't know or care. That is something to be determined by a sockpuppet investigation, if the other user cares to file one. If you aren't doing anything wrong just go about your business and don't convern yourself with it. Natalie 10:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are your posts the ones that all begin "Ezhava's are toddy tappers"? If those posts are yours than yes, I did remove them and yes, the fault is yours. If those posts are not yours, then the message is not directed at you. I did revert your posting of old discussion because it quadrupled the size of the page and was unnecessary. Natalie 13:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. I didn't realize that the toddy tappers person was editing your posts, so I did remove your vandalised posts, but it was not my intention to delete your words. Sorry about that. I have the page watchlisted, and will revert any vandalism of anyone's talk page postings. You are free to do the same. Natalie 15:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTFORUM, wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of your personal theory of how the world works. I have removed your comments from Talk:Radiesthesia and Talk:Homeopathy. Also from Talk:Right to education --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to article talk pages

Several of your edits to various article talk pages seem to be promoting your own opinion pieces posted on an external website, such these edits:

Please note that article talk pages are only for discussing changes to its associated article or project page. Per talk page guidelines, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Also, these edits you have made are in violation of WP:SPAM as well, particularly this section. Please do not continue to add such comments to talk pages. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 05:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a WP:AN thread on this. Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Spamming_on_article_talk_pages. You're welcome to express your ideas on the topic there. Chamal ^talk 05:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You have been warned repeatedly about violations of WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. You continue to post long sections of personal analysis on talk pages. If you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing. --Daniel 05:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've done it again

You have ignored the instructions here and recreated the talk page for an article that no longer exists, just to ask the question, "Why was the article deleted?"

Your contribution will be deleted shortly. The answer to your question can be read here. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you have done again is mis-used a talk page, as per the long list above. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to all the accusation

I have replied to the accusations here [link] Link heading: Spamming on article talk pages --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

Let me explain that there are many Wikipedia articles that are mere propaganda material. If it is about LTTE, then all I asked was for a more balanced writing. As to the links given to my writings, naturally in all websites that I take a membership, in my profile page there are links to my writings. Just because a User got agitated by a request for the removal of a one-sided use of the word terrorist, it does not mean there was any mischief. As to whether LTTE was terrorist or the otherside was, only later history can say for sure.

As to the various antipathy that I received in the Ezhava page also it is natural. For I strove to correct a deliberate misinformation. However, a lot of vandalism was done on my writings. An Administrator came into the picture and she also admonished me for inserting words like Toddy Tapper etc. I discussed with her what had really happened and gave links to my writings as against what was purported to be my writings. After studying the same, she ultimately came to the conclusion that I was not in the wrong.

I quote from her last reply:

Quote: Okay, I see. I didn't realize that the toddy tappers person was editing your posts, so I did remove your vandalised posts, but it was not my intention to delete your words. Sorry about that. I have the page watchlisted, and will revert any vandalism of anyone's talk page postings. You are free to do the same. Natalie 15:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is true that in the earlier days, I may have posted links to my writings directly from the edited talk page. When I understood that this was in violation of some rules, generally I desisted. As to the post on South Africa, I really wanted to input an idea that could be included in the article, for it is something that has never before been considered. As to the link given, there is no personal benefit in it, other than the information in it. As to it being anti-India, is just a figment of imagination. For the given link is a thing that is being considered by the Kerala High Court with regard to the use of pejoratives by the police and other official class towards the common man in Kerala, India. In no way it is anti-Indian, other than if being pro-Indian people is being anti-India. Moreover the context of the link had no link to the legal proceedings in Kerala.

A lot of one sided writings are there on my User Talk Page, but then all of them are one-sided. I took time to correct only one person's accusations. All the others I did not care to reply.

Now, looking at accusations, I am sure all my insertions will have reap the same accusations: Let me give links to some of Talk Page insertions. See if anyone can accuse me of promoting my writings, or just suggesting a more scholarly input:

[[1]] TalkPage King Ashoka

[[2]] Pazhassiraja

[Movement] Swadeshi Movement

[Chandra]Bankim Chandra Chattopadyaya

Now look at this insertion: [[3]] E K Nayanar. I am sure that this can bring up demands to have me removed from membership. For, it is about a communist party leader, idolized by the party members. I do not belong to any particular party. Yet, a feeling that I am from some opposite party may arise.

I do not search article to post ideas. When I am searching for some content I come across articles which are of questionable correctness or not balanced. There is no aim of advertising my ideas through the Wikipedia.

While in many cases my writings are not objected by the immediate persons concerned with the main article, there was one single incident that brought an immediate negative response. It was when I wrote in Prophet Muhammed's Talk Page. Yet, I have seen many acrimonious words in many other articles that are not objected to. The spontaneousness of the response was more in regard to the fact that it was in a page connected to a religion which is viewed as a sort of terrorist organisation in many places. Actually my words were sort of opposite to that feeling.

Before concluding let me say that certain editors have blatantly gone around deleting my writings in many places in a sort of prejudiced manner. I would say it was not fair. If at all they need to be fair, let them go through the talk I had with Administrator Natalie. {the links is above in posts she made here}. I cant find the conversation now, but it can be searched out I suppose. Without going through the whole conversation, it is not correct to summerise that it was I who did the mischief in the Ezhava page. The administrator understood that later told me to stick to my stand as seen from the quote above. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to talk pages

You seem to be using Wikipedia article talk pages as some sort of sermonizing platform for your world view. Please note that these pages are to discuss content for the article and are specifically not a soapbox. It appears that you've been alerted to this many times before, but you don't seem to take the feedback. Please do not continue this. —SpacemanSpiff 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given that you've been told this many times before including multiple warnings to cease or get blocked, I'm blocking you. You can be unblocked if you agree to stop using Wikipedia as your soapbox. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia as a forum to air your personal views etc and refusing to listen to feedback.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —SpacemanSpiff 16:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to this nut I really do not know what is wrong with this man. Last time I wrote into the an Islamic page, I was given the warning. This time, when I wrote a query into the Islamic page, I am blocked and the post deleted. I would be quite happy to know what is the issue with my postings on the talk page. It is for the persons who made the main article to take up the issue and make corrections. As to the being blocked on Wikipedia, I am not going to die from that. Nor was I making any earnings from making posts on Wikipedia, even though another nut came with the accusations that I was advertising myself and my works.

Most of the article on Wikipedia on India and such other things were are biased and more or less promoting the views and opinions of the article writers. They are not encyclopedic at all. If I come as a correction, I get admonished. Instead of daring to take action against such persons, some low quality, mediocre try to intimidate. Let him take his admonition to his own home. There are plenty of other places to write on the Internet. I cant imagine this nuts daring to make accusations without coming out with specifics.

As for blocking me, who does he think he is? Just another silly guy who roams the Internet with a blocking tool. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked: you are not here to contribute to Wikipedia, which is probably why instead of an unblock request you posted another rant. That's enough disruption. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to look in

... at the Western culture article, where you now may be beginning to have a consensus to change the article, in the directions you proposed earlier (where you called attention to length, and sourcing). See last Talk entry there, and comment as you see appropriate. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can surely see above, this user is blocked indefinitely. Your style of speech on other pages is very, very like user: Vedo36. I hope I am mistaken, but I have asked for an Admin to look into this. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]