Hi Ihaveabandonedmychild! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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)[reply]

I am adding the citation Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ihaveabandonedmychild. 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:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do cite reliable sources   Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't add original research   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You could have a Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And what would be the reason to block me? Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Template:Z33

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).[reply]

Template:Z33

Hi Ihaveabandonedmychild! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Adding YouTube link as citation, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 08:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain for what edit this block was put on? Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpacemanSpiff Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Kaduvetti Guru is not a living person. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please post the administration board link. I want to appeal against this block Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. [[User:Ihaveabandonedmychild|Ihaveabandonedmychild]] ([[User talk:Ihaveabandonedmychild#top|talk]]) 08:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. [[User:Ihaveabandonedmychild|Ihaveabandonedmychild]] ([[User talk:Ihaveabandonedmychild#top|talk]]) 08:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. [[User:Ihaveabandonedmychild|Ihaveabandonedmychild]] ([[User talk:Ihaveabandonedmychild#top|talk]]) 08:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

As this is not going to stop:

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)[reply]