User talk:Pnranjith

Welcome!

Hello, Pnranjith, 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 K T Ligesh, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

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! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of K T Ligesh[edit]

A tag has been placed on K T Ligesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Grand Master(Cricket)[edit]

The article Grand Master(Cricket) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Simply a nickname and therefore not notable of an article, unreferenced and contains info already at Sachin Tendulkar

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.

Speedy deletion nomination of IFB Appliances[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on IFB Appliances requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cntras (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BinarySMS.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nimuaq (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Ezhava, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sitush (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal attack. I have seen one website which says so. See here: <redacted> Pnranjith (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you believe everything you read on the internet, do you? People have been blocked for raising that scurrilous blog here. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe which ever justify my doubts. You are constantly denying a valid article being published in wiki. So, what else could be the motive? Pnranjith (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy, as has been explained at Talk:Ezhava. You should assume good faith. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pnranjith. Please note that that website has been discussed here on Wikipedia before, and the strong consensus among reliable editors is that it's completely ridiculous. No one is paying Sitush any money to edit Wikipedia; this is actually pretty obvious, given that he's written things that directly contradict the alleged viewpoint of that alleged employer. Sitush is actually recognized by long-term editors as one of the best editors here, with a key attention to detail and willingness to conduct extensive research to ensure that articles are closely matching to sources. Numerous editors have accused Sitush of bias, and the community has always found him to be impeccable. Also, you do need to note that the extreme and hateful nature of that "blog post" is so offensive that editors have been asked to not discuss it and certainly not to link to it (that's why I removed the link above). Doing so is definitely a form of harassment against a good faith editor, and if you repeat those accusations without actual evidence (again, the blog post isn't evidence), you will be blocked.

Now, if you want to help improve Wikipedia, stop guessing about the motivation of other editors (heck, stop commenting on other editors entirely) and instead focus on the articles. We improve them by summarizing information found in reliable sources, and never putting in things we just "know" or conducting original research. If you need help understanding how that works, you can ask me, or ask at the WP:Help desk. There's a bunch of links at the top of this page that will help you get started. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions[edit]

I think that we have reached the point where you need to be made aware of the sanctions that apply to caste articles. Your comments at Talk:Ezhava have gone on for long enough without any provision of the reliable sourcing that has been requested by others. You cannot tendentiously continue a discussion. Please take note of the information below. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Attack[edit]

This is verging on being another attack. The situation is not complex at all: all you have to do is take sources to WP:RSN or the notion of a separate article for Thiyyas to dispute resolution. This has been explained on several occasions and the only complexity here is entirely the making of you and other pro-Thiyya contributors, principally due to an apparent inability or unwillingness to understand policy and to use talk pages appropriately. RSN and DR will get "more eyes" on the issues and thus avoid what you seem to think is a conspiracy. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why dont you add your points there. Its better to discuss from the same page. Right? When I say you are incorrect doesn't mean that I am attacking you. If you felt so, sorry about that. I just wanted to know the source with which you claim that we are subcaste.Pnranjith (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this repetition of argument, the article does not say that they are a subcaste. Now stop making these claims, please. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If article does not say so, what is the purpose of showing the Thiyya heritage in ezhava page?Pnranjith (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's first deal with why you are making false statements. Being known by two different names is not the same as group B being a subgroup of A: if you cannot understand this then you have a comprehension problem relating to the English language, sorry. And please can you ensure that you are not using multiple accounts, have never had any dealings with the newly-registered Amal folsom previously, nor operated any other accounts in the past here (eg: see this for one of the many previous efforts). If you have done any of these things then you really do need to stop now because some aspects of this can be checked and if it has happened then it will not do your cause any favours. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made any false comments. Is it you or myself living on the area who knows the difference well? Why do you say that the statement is false? There was a subcaste mention in wiki which you removed recently to support your claim. If you say both are different names why ezhava is not redirecting to Thiyya? Its mere commonsense that you simply want to put some arguments to backup your claims. And don't comeup with nonsense statements. I have never made at the link you shown there.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Caste sanctions enforcement request. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please don't write this kind of stuff anymore. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humble unsolicited advice[edit]

I came across your incident, as the AN/I page is on my watch list. Please make good use of your block generated free time and try understand Wikipedia policies, namely wp:RS and wp:V, and wp:OSE, your argument that "you have more authority because you know more" doesn't hold water on Wikipedia, please see wp:OR. Please do not attempt to sock as it would lead to an indefinite block. Please understand that sanctions on Wikipedia are preventive and not punitive. So if you think you have understood the problems that have been identified with your editing behaviour, perhaps you could appeal for revoking the block or for a request that you may not be topic banned. Good luck. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can use links to "appealing block" etc. to understand how to go about, read "bad requests" too, you are only 81 edits old here and I am sorry this is happening to you. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reply too Sitush's fake profiles[edit]

This is clearly sponsored attack by Sitush. My attack was only on retaliation to save myself and my people from harassment. Sitush is always doing that by making false claims.I don't care if I dont have permission to contribute wiki. Wiki is a crap world with all misleading information. This bastard Sitush is doing all nonsense politics to keep his money flowing. <html redacted>

We know that he is funded largely. You ban me permanently. Ban my IP itself. I DONT CARE!!! This is not my living. Sitush may have multiple accounts with admin permission to keep his job running. I suspect few admins here are accounts created by Sitush who is making money with wiki edit. Also, the admin who has request a ban on me is Qwyrxian. He has been supporting Sitush in most of the topic discussed in wiki. This clearly shows that both admin accounts are run by the same individual. Ranjith (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That blogspot article is a blatant lie from start to finish - but I expect you already know that. It's a shame you did not pay any attention to Yogesh's sound advice, above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned before about referring to that scurrilous blog. As I said then (see thread above), you should not believe everything you read on the internet. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe anything completely without a proof. I have no vested interest here. I am not making money by contributing to Wikipedia either. I have a different prestigious job and I do not want to cheat people to make money.Pnranjith (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is either every longer term editor on Wikipedia, including the administrators, including everyone on the administrators noticeboard is in a giant conspiracy against you, or you are mistaken. If you believe the former against all reason, then there is probably no place for you on Wikipedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn, Sorry if my comment hurt you or some other admin in any way. My comments is solely against Sitush and his suspicious fake id Qwyrxian and my doubts is really valid. Its not a rocket science to identify that these are same person. If you see history of edits done by these two(Sitush and Qwyrxian) admins, you can see the very similarity in their edits. That's the reason I became spurious. Again, about the ban, I dont mind because the call for the ban came from a fake id.Pnranjith (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the actual evidence proves completely the opposite of your accusations, Pnranjith - one of them is in the UK and one is in Japan. Now, it's time for you to put up or shut up, Pnranjith - if you believe you have sufficient evidence that the two are the same person, then wait until your current block expires and file a report at WP:SPI. If you do not file such a report, but continue to make these accusations, that will be considered harassment and you will be indefinitely blocked from editing without the ability to edit this page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Definitely I will file a report. I already have few proofs. Once I collect completely, I will be announcing that in my blog. Thanks for understanding again.Pnranjith (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, hang on, let me get this right - are you really claiming that the same person is editing simultaneously from two places nearly 10,000 kilometers apart? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its so simple. If you have a proxy located in Japan, you can easily fool people that you are editing from Japan!Pnranjith (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia blocks such proxies when it finds them, so it's pretty unlikely that such a thing could have gone unnoticed for so long. And Sitush has actually been in my presence while Qwyrxian was editing from Japan before now. But please don't let me stop you making a fool of yourself at WP:SPI when your block expires - I could do with a laugh. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And given the fact that Sitush and I both edit alot, a simple check of our histories will show times where we were both making substantial edits simultaneously. I kind of wish I were cool enough to have two fundamentally distinct online personalities (including the fact that while we often agree, we have openly disagreed on a number of ocassions), the ability to had made over 130,000 edits (the combination of Sitush and myself), and the ability to edit multiple different and totally unrelated articles at exactly the same time. Heck, I just wish I knew as much about history as Sitush does. But, sadly, it's not the case. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjit you need to cool down a bit, perhaps you don't need Wikipedia, but Wikipedia needs people with passion, as long as they follow the rules! I hope those dealing with Ranjit who is less than 100 edits old take WP:BITE into cognizance, (hoping against hope actually). Ranjit if you think you are right, bring wp:RS in your support, (of course after your block expires, or is reversed). Since you are a computer engineer you would understand how wp:SPI works, and as mentioned above Sitush and Qwyrxian cannot be in England and Japan at the same time. You could say that one of them is a meat puppet of the other, but before you allege so take into consideration the thousands of edits they have made. Long story short, it is easier to imagine conspiracy than to introspect and figure our where we went wrong. Also if you stumble across someone who has been apotheosised don't forget that it isn't a fair world.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I too am Sitush's sock/ meat? If I were you I would strike bastard out, as using profanity (so often used against me) is a symptom of having run out of ideas, and it is simply not our culture. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are wise words - I hope they will be heeded. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing the personal attacks with a sock account, at User:Unblockranjith. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not me! You are over reacting without any reason. I am off wiki for many days. This has to be looked after by WP:AC!!! Pnranjith (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't go straight to the Arbitration Committee as a first step - we start by discussion here. It is possible that someone is lying and pretending to be you, but that should be uncovered by the investigation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pnranjith. If I was mistaken and it is indeed someone trying to get you into trouble, I will be happy to apologise and revert the block. You would still be blocked at the moment anyway, for personal attacks, so I see no harm in waiting a short time for the SPI results - then if my block needs to be reverted, I can log the appropriate reason. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I should add that any other admin is free to revert my actions without my prior approval if they think it is best to do so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As is also noted on the SPI page, User:Deskana off-wiki already

Confirmed that account through CU; keeping this block in place until at least the CU runs (and that should be before the original block would have expired) is probably the best idea. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Its perfectly ok. I don't mind if my block is not reverted.Some of the admins are really coward. I don't want this talk page also.. You can permanently block me. Get lost you cowards. Few of these admins are coming with a new trick to suspend me completely to avoid my points here. You people doesn't have the guts to defend me. That's why you are coming up with block and sanctions.Pnranjith (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BinarySMS concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BinarySMS, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]