Irajeevwiki

Welcome

Hello, Irajeevwiki, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! I am One of Many (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

[[User:iRajiRaj]] [[User talk:iRajtalk]] 06:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't resubmit the article

resubmitting the article is becoming disruptive, and its not helping. Please find a different way to resolve the issue, re-submitting the article is not helping. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't a request. You should go about this another way. If you resubmit I will block your account. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So I blocked your account (for 48 hours). I'm more than happy to undo the block, on the provision that you will not be re-submitting the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you should note there is also a guide to apealing blocks, Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

this is not the end of the world, other users are also watching your actions. You got privilege to block and you are mis using it. Reason to block me is disruptive editing which I didn't do, I was resubmitting my own article. You rejected my article many times today. I was resubmitting my article to see if I can get some one else to check and approve, because you don't know anything about castes in India and you are trying to say your opinion on that. If I'm not well versed in mathematics I wouldn't touch it, it's just like that. You don't know anything about caste or South Indian history and you are trying to say your opinion on that subject. Originally you said grammar mistakes and English quality to reject article then you changed your stand second time and mentioned article already rejected and cannot be published. I was actually waiting for the admin of exhava article to remove POV fork restrictions which you should have checked before rejecting my article. You actions were disruptive not mine and you blocked me. Good on you !!!Irajeevwiki (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, there is no way you could misunderstand any intentions here. I told you not to resubmit, but find another way to resolve the issue. I told you I would block you if you'd keep doing it. Instead of discussing it, you continued to resubmit it. I, indeed, know close to nothing about castes in India, but I do know a thing or two about Wikipedia. My reasons for failing the article has nothing to do with my knowledge of castes in India, but was orginially based on use of English, indeed, and this to me is still a reason to fail it. A second overriding reason is the AfD. I re-iterate, AfC is not, and will never be the route to a solution. Because it has gone through AfD, there needs to be a community consensus before anything happens. That means that a single reviewer never should accept the article, it should be dealt with differently. The best way, I think, is an RfC on Talk:Ezhava. Other ways could be going through WP:DRV for the original article. Wikipedia will not go under because of a few extra days of discussion on the Exhava talkpage. You contributions on the AfC could be valuable for a new article. But not before the issues on the grounds of this being a POV fork or not are resolved. You were free to work on this issue, but not on resubmitting the AfC. Since you were unwilling to stop it, I saw no other option than to block you. I will say again, I blocked you *only* for repeatedly submitting the article. If you're ok with resolving the issue in an other way, I will unblock you, as long as you don't re-submit the AfC as long as the issues on the talkpage of Ezhava haven't come to a conclusion that a new article should be created. Can we agree to that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Snapshotofthethiyyabook.png

Thanks for uploading File:Snapshotofthethiyyabook.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Irajeevwiki. You have new messages at Freebirds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

this account and ip has been blocked by an admin for silly reasons, I'm here on Wikipedia, not for vandalising any article or anything like that. This is an unfair to me, the blocked time was only 48 hrs, it's over 48 hours and still block continues. I was only submitting my article for approval, as a responsible admin Martijn Hoekstra should have adviced me how to get my article published, such as going through Afd and talking in Ezhava talk page for a consensus to remove POV fork, He only gave me proper instructions after blocking, I believe it was an unfair to a newbie. Yes I know there was minor grammatical errors happened in my article, don't know how it happend, may be because I use iPad for editing sometimes and might have happend by auto spell check or might have deleted some section accidentally, but it is not a big reason to reject the article, but every time my appeal gets rejected admins left note to clean up article except one who explained that there was an article published in the past under the same name of my article which I wasn't aware of and he said that article had been through Afd, and an admin created POV fork, that's why he can't put the article to main space and actually we were communicating with the admin who created POV fork but unfortunately admin Martijn Hoekstra reviewed my article and left a silly note to reject iit. I have resubmitted article just to see if any other admins can help me, but every time i resubmit my article Martijn Hoekstra keeps declining anf finally blocked me. if Martijn Hoekstra looked my talk page he wouldnt have declined it, im sure but what he has done here is completely injustice to a new user like me. i requst please unblock my ip and account so that I can edit my article and take necessary steps to get it published. ThanksIrajeevwiki (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per below, no longer blocked. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your block should by now have gone; please indicate here if it has not. You say that you were just submitting your article for approval, amd this is true. But you continued to submit it on multiple occasions, after it had been rejected, and in spite of being warned that you would be blocked if you continued to do so. I warn you now; if you submit the identical article again I will replace the block. You are welcome to edit here, but write something else. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. My ip is still blocked. And you said write something else, but I want to get this article published under thiyyar name. Wikipedia admins have been deceived by ezhava article writer. I'm not criticising any admins but it was a wrong decision to create thiyyar as a POV fork of ezhava. Kindly tell me what I can do to remove a POV fork,Irajeevwiki (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, IP seems working now. Would you mind giving more informations of how i can get POV fork restrictions removed from creating Thiyyar articleIrajeevwiki (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have spent some long time reading through this article. I am sorry to have to say that it appears that your command of the English language is not perfect. Please feel free to re-submit your article, but could I suggest that before doing so you ask a native English speaker - surely you know one - to review your wording, grammar and syntax. If the article were to be written in correct English there may be no problem in accepting it. The POV aspect is merely a matter of removing comments relating to your, or other, opinions from the article.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anthony I will fix all the grammar and spelling errors, as you advised I requested my colleague to do a thorough proof reading of the article and she is doing that, will get the article fixed first, then I will follow your instructions. Many thanks for your time. Irajeevwiki (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, do you mean to say you support the recreation of an article previously deleted through AfD through AfC? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, Martijn and Irajeevwiki. I've been following this article for a while now through AfC and have been in contact with Irajeevwiki over the article's creation, so I thought it would be appropriate to weigh in on the matter. In terms of the article itself, I would agree that it needs a significant amount of improvement before it can be admitted into the mainspace, but I am willing to help Irajeevwiki or any other editors involved in order to make the article meet the basic requirements of an encyclopedia article. In terms of the creation block, I feel that Irajeevwiki has some merit in saying that the block is somewhat unreasonable. I read the AfD page for Thiyyar and see many factual errors that are keeping the article from being re-created. I have attempted to contact User:Bwilkins (the creator of the block) but have failed to get a response on the issue. I hope that another editor (such as Anthony) would consider an unblock, and I would support such an action, but of course that isn't up to me. Like I mentioned earlier, I am willing to help Irajeevwiki fix the outstanding problems with his article, assuming that an unblock or some sort of reasonable solution can be found. Freebirds ^Howdy! 19:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Freebirds, thanks for chipping in. I stand by that recreation of an article through AfC when it has been deleted at AfD is not a good idea: to revisit a community decision, even if it wasn't the clearest discussion of all time should be done by a new community decission, not the unilateral process of recreation. Throwing my general ignorance out there by the way, is there a relation here to Nair? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be the person to ask. From what Irajeevwiki has told me, there is little to no relation between the Thiyyar and Ezhava castes, but Nair doesn't sound familiar. Were you thinking of merging the contents into an article that already exists? Freebirds ^Howdy! 04:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

just trying to get my bearings. That article once was moved from Tiyyar to Nair, and looks similar at first glance, but my first glance isn't worth much. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Freebirds and Martijn First of all Nair caste is completely different. It is a forward caste like Menon, Nambiar etc. ezhava and thiyyar are other backward castes in south India. Thiyyar culture is very different. Thiyyar mainly located in North Malabar whereas Ezhavas in South Kerala. I'll update my article with strong reference links soon, just waiting for my colleague to finish the proof reading. Hopefully beginning of next week I can edit the article but won't submit until I get a favourable reply from admins. Irajeevwiki (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions

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) 22:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

Regarding Sanction

Excuse me ! What are you scared of Sitush. You want me to stop talking here in wikipedia. You know i have some valid and genuine points. I have started a discussion in Ezhava talk page and we can not come to a conclusion, we have to wait for more people to come forward and say their opinion on this subject. I believe wikipedia is not controlled by Sitush, there are many other senior admins who will give me a chance to express my opinions through this discussion. We have a public consensus on this subject. Let us talk on ezhava page and come to a decision.

I am not trying to scare you and I am sorry if it appears that way. The problem is that the Thiyya/Ezhava issue has been bouncing around on English Wikipedia for many months now. There have been umpteen attempts to create separate articles using various transliterations of the name and there have been umpteen attempts to cause change within the Ezhava article itself. However, one of the basic requirements of Wikipedia is that statements here are almost always required to be verifiable by reference to reliable sources, and no-one has ever managed to satisfy this in the case of the Thiyya claims (which, yes, I have compared to their off-wiki campaign).

I have no axe to grind in this dispute between communities of south India - the nearest I associate with the place is Indore where, I recently discovered, my great-great grandmother was born, although she was British and was back in England by the time she married. If something is disputed then we have processes to deal with that. As in the past regarding this particular dispute, I have referred those who favour the Thiyya argument to our dispute resolution process but, as far as I can recall, this has never gone any further. You are welcome to try that process again but, honestly, going round in circles at Talk:Ezhava and by repeated attempted creation of a separate article about the Thiyyas (see your talk page, above) is not the way forward. At some point we have to draw a line under this ... until and if reliable sources actually report differently. There is nothing to prevent us elaborating on the regional differences practised by the variously-named Ezhava communities within the existing article but, again, we can only do so if the statements abide by our policies. Sorry, but that is how it is here: if you want to write otherwise then you'll have to find some other venue. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is a repeated attempt by several members to create an article, why should they do that at first. It clearly show that there is a clear need of a separate article and that is why people are constantly trying to create the article.198.175.68.37 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Also, let me know what is a "reliable source" in your opinion if the books with valid ISBN published by British authors are not at all "reliable" to you.198.175.68.37 (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

All the repeated attempts show is that a fair few people (or perhaps a couple or so, using different accounts) do not understand our policies. And more people have said "not here, matey" than have allowed that content to stand. As for identifying a reliable source, not for the first time I refer you to WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So, that couple of people are completely wrong and you are the only one who is correct. Have you ever been to North Malabar? Do you know anything about Theyyam? First learn about our custom to derive a conclusion.Pnranjith (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you read English with a decent level of comprehension? I'm a beginning to think not. Read what I said again, Pnranjith: it is not just me who has problems with splitting Thiyya from the Ezhava article. Just this month, you've had comments from Qwyrxian, Boing! said Zebedee and the people who reviewed the latest attempt to create such an article at WP:AFC. If you add to that list those people said the same in the previous Thiyya community wiki campaign then you are looking at a dozen or more.

Actually, one person can "win" against a dozen if the one person complies with policy and the dozen do not, which is why some past attempts to organise support for changes to caste articles off-wiki (eg: at Orkut} have failed. Policy is everything. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi I Just wanted to let the admins know that we are having a discussion on the same subject in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ezhava page Irajeevwiki (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martijn Hoekstra , Anthony Bradbury, Howdy! I like to invite your kind attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ezhava#Local_Government_recognition_of_Thiyya_and_Ezhava_as_two_different_community as the debate is almost over on this subject. I have provided valid and genuine references there to establish Thiyya is a separate caste. Hope you can take a favourable action to publish my proposed article "Thiyyar" Thanks Irajeevwiki (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Caste_sanctions_enforcement_request. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How to UNDO revert????

Hi Irajeevwiki, How do you undo a revert. I have reasons to believe that they have done it on purpose to hide the facts provided. This was the section that was reverted. This one proof is sufficient to prove that Central Government has authority over caste matters and not state, ( some people have said state government has authority and when I gave them this as evidence, they simply reverted this and is trying to hide it)

Perhaps this will help you understand why those entry numbers are of prime importance and thousands of people depend on it for getting jobs and many forms of reservation. http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/Ncbcact.pdf Please read it and don't make assumptions that it's of no importance. The entry number of a caste does not change every year, it's not a serial number. It's the 'entry' number of that caste in that resolution (of course resolutions are passed by the lok sabha and rajya sabha). The following points may be noted from the act - 1. Act put forward by the Ministry of Law, Justice and company affairs. 2. It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (State of kerala is bound by this act now). 3. "lists" means list prepared by the Government of India from time to time to make for purpose of making provisions for the reservation of appointment of posts in favor of backward classes of citizens, which in opinion of that Government, are not adequately represented in the services and any local or other authority within the territory if India or under the control of Government of India. (In this list since thiyya and ezhava are mentioned sepearatly, they will be represented in the services as two distinct casts, the members of the two casts can also compete against each other for jobs etc. And kerala is a territory which is under the control of Government of India). 4. The Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as the National Commission for Backward classes to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to, it under this Act. (It clearly says Central Government, so don't make assumptions). 5. The Commission shall consist of the following members nominated by the Central Government.

    1. a chairperson, who is or has been a Judge of Supreme court or of a High Court.
    2. a social scientist.
    3. two persons, who has special knowledge in matters relating to the backward classes, and 
    4. a Member - Secretary, who is or has been an officer of the Central Government in the rank of a Secretary to the Government of India. 

(To win the argument and your stubborn resistance to acknowledge that you are wrong in this case, and that you have no knowledge whatsoever in matters relating to castes in India, shows that you are either inept or making this article for some ulterior motives. You sitush has gone to the extend of belittling and insulting the intelligence of a former Supreme Court judge or high court judge, a social scientist, two persons who has special knowledge relating to the castes, and an officer in the rank of Secretary to the Government of India.) 6. The commission shall examine requests of inclusion of any class of citizens as backward class in the list..... and tender such advice to the Central Government as it deems appropriate (they have no power to include or exclude) 7. The advice of the commission shall ordinarily binding upon the Central Government (Central Government decides to include or not include). 8. Periodic revision every 10 years by the Central Government. (Sitush was again ignorant of this, and insulted by saying they have changed their mind 1100 times, a gross exaggeration and conduct in a manner not fit to deal with an article that can be a potentially useful information. )

I think you should go through the entire contents of this Act. I am telling you again, just because you don't want to accept that you are wrong , you don't have to toy with the life of people who come here with the belief that this article is correct. I have given you the right information and how Government of India sees these two castes. Now on you will be misleading people knowingly. I must also warn you now if charged you will be prosecuted under the following sections of the IPC. I WILL NOT BE TAKING ANY LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ANYONE. 1. Section 177 - Misleading people to furnish false information will also come under this 2. Section 153a - Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.-- (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, 3. Section 268 - Annoyance to the public will also come under this, (using this article is only inviting annoyance as this article is providing information that contradicts the official one) 4. Section 295a - [295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2[citizens of India], 3[by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.] (you have done this by writing in this article that the deity of thiyyas, Sri Muthappan is the deity of ezhavas. You have by which hurt the sentiments of all thiyyas. ) 5. Section 298 - Similar offence as above. 6. Section 499- Defamation, (maybe or maybe not) 7. Then there will be sections for misleading the public etc etc. Like I said before, I assure you, I won't be taking any legal action. Consider this as good warning of the consequence you might face if someone decides to go with it. Amal89 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amal89 a group of wikipedians legislating their own wiki rules here, they got their own personal interest. I have provided many books here (WP:RS) which clearly show the difference of these two castes but these admins only trust those books which come inline with their views. Thats why i said "personal interest". Wikipedians should think neutrally but here i have seen wikipedians biased and stubborn on their views even though it is strange and illogical. They decide which book is reliable and which is not reliable. If you look other caste related wiki page talk pages you can see same admins interfering and saying their opinion on them, even though they know nothing about the subject. I saw one recent reply from Yogesh in ANI page to your comment . It is silly, his reply is completely out of context. This is how some admins operate here. . Irajeevwiki (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amal89 I request you to edit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thiyyar so that when the POV fork issue get fixed, we can submit it for approval. UseriRaj talk 10:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

common ground section

Hi Irajeevwiki. On the common ground section I created on Talk:Ezhava, I asked not to give more than 5 words for each statement. I'm not the boss off talkpages, and I can't force you to go along with this plan, but I would like to ask you to trim your opinions down to that limit. I didn't intent for it as a discussion section, but as a section for finding common ground. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Hi Irajeevwiki. It looks like you changed your signature, but now it links to a non existing user and user talk page. Could you fix that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Martijn Hoekstra I have fixed it.irajeevwiki talk 22:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

linking

Rajeev just a suggestion, when you provide links you paste the entire url, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thiyyar, it makes your text difficult to read esp. if the url is long which is quite often, putting brackets round the url, makes it collapse to a number,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thiyyar ][1] it is just one of the ways it is done. Sorry for this unsolicited intrusion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Yogesh Khandke. Would you please give me some directions for getting Thiyyar article published in wiki. I think an admin can remove forking of Thiyya.

irajeevwiki talk 19:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Admins

I suggest you spend some time reading around Wikipedia. Actually it is simple to identify who an admin is:

1. Most admins declare their status on their user pages: They say they are part of Category: Administrator/ have a small logo on the top right corner of their page that marks themselves as admins.
2. On the User contributions page that is accessed by clicking the User contribution link which is active in the tool box, when you go to that particular user's User page or Talk page there is a link at the bottom of the page that says User rights, the link takes one to the page Users. The preceding link tells us tha Martijn is an edit filter manager and an administrator. Hope this is useful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Yogesh, I am still learning wikipedia. Thanks for your support. irajeevwiki talk 06:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Stumbled across this while looking through ANI. There's actually a script that helps with identifying admins, by highlighting their names bright blue.

Go to your skin script file and edit it to add the following:

importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights.js');

You'll want to close out all browser windows and then come back, and it should be working. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh external dimorphism, great! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It works! What is the .css file about? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning

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.

I know you have had this before, but here it is again - your political campaigning on Wikipedia has gone on for too long, and blocks are going to start being handed out if it continues much longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you could for a change try editing less contentious topics, perhaps write about your town/ village if it is notable, or any person whom you know is notable, but not on Wikipedia. Please study necessary criteria before you do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for persistent disruptive editing. 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.  Drmies (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Irajeevwiki, I spoke up for those of you who are supporting the notion of a separate article for Thiyya in the previous recent ANI discussion concerning requested imposition of caste sanctions because I was prepared to give you a bit more time to adjust to how we work here. Not an awful lot has changed in your behaviour and this is the almost-inevitable outcome. I am not the most patient of people but even I was willing to give you all some leeway back then; the likes of Boing! tend to be more patient than me and, of course, Yogesh is among those who have been trying hard to resolve the issues and to give you very useful advice. I am sorry but you cannot ignore for ever a substantial number of people with considerable experience of Wikipedia. I second what Yogesh says in the section above: come back in three days and find something a little bit less contentious upon which to cut your teeth. Best wishes. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the AN/I[2] debate you initiated, your missile has boomeranged, for good reason. Though I am arguing that you be unblocked as a good faith gesture, the block is completely justifiable, considering the special sanctions in place in the areas you are editing. You could be unblocked, if you think you have understood the problems that have been identified in your editing, even if you haven't, you could offer a self-imposed ban from editing caste articles as a sign that you are prepared to edit Wikipedia productively, and use the time to figure them out. Any administrative action on Wikipedia is "preventive and not punitive". Please use the appealing mechanism (as described in the template) to do so. I wish you the best. (Please do not sock). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My account has been blocked. Kindly someone explain what was the reason for imposing a block on my account, so that in future i do not repeat that mistake again. I am a new wikipedia contributor, a genuine contributor who spent $257 on books last month (March) only. Bought 5 books from online and finished reading 3 books just for making sure that what i am claiming in ezhava page is genuine & valid. The POV tag i placed on Ezhava has been moved without a consensus in the talk page WP:POV, is it against wiki policy. I was trying to fix articles issues by discussion, if you look the communication in Ezhava talk page, you can see how polite i was there, i didnt use any offensive words there towards anyone, I did not vandalise any article, Yes, i was arguing there, providing genuine book references there and talking, they were as per Wikipedia Rules and never tried to edit or vandalise Ezhava Article. The reason for block is Disruptive edit history, which i didn't do in any pages. WP:BOOMERANG I understand now and i believe my own actions in the matter have been entirely blameless. There are many reasons to put a POV Checkbtag, the article says something that other people would want to disagree with, As per wiki rule. An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved This is wiki rule but the POV Check tag has been removed today and i cant see any decision taken on articles neutrality issue. Apologies, if i did anything wrong, and i am keen here to know what did i do wrong, reporting an incident to WP:ANI if that is wrong then what is the meaning of WP:ANI I am requesting to senior admins to unblock my account then i can help to fix ezhava article by a proper discussion. irajeevwiki talk 10:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Technical decline only, because a new request has been posted below - I will respond to that one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

• Suggestion: Rajeev this won't get you unblocked, it is perhaps my inability to communicate effectively, I give it another try, what would work is you saying: "My behaviour has been perceived as a problem, I address the issue by staying away from such areas", then with time you could figure out for yourself how you were wrong. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• See it is your judgement of your behaviour v/s its judgement by others, even in real life situations, can we be the best judge of our own behaviour? Please don't bring the content dispute here. For starters you've done 0.5 percent article edits in the about four hundred you've done. That is a skewed ratio, mine is 47%, I don't know what the average or ideal one is. Yours doesn't look so very good. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Yogesh, I know i didnt do anything wrong here, tried to fix an articles issue and if thats wrong then they can block me indefinitely. I wont come back to wikipedia again but i will lose my trust in wikipedia thats all. I know there are senior admins, not sure whether they would come and watch this request or not but i believe 100% i am right. irajeevwiki talk 12:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't judge yourself. Should it be a good bye or an au revoir? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a factual point, there are no "senior admins" - all admins are of equal status, and disputes are settled by community consensus rather than by seniority. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I request admins kindly unblock my account. I understood WP:BOOMERANG will comply with wiki rules irajeevwiki talk 01:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK, I've had a word with the blocking admin, Drmies, and we're happy to unblock you. But I'd like to offer a few words of advice...

• It's great to see you uncovering sources, but what Wikipedia can't do is select one source (or one set of sources) and declare that to be correct. The best we can do while an issue is actually disputed in real life is reflect both sides of the dispute - should the dispute be resolved decisively on one side, only then can Wikipedia reflect that decision.
• Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative and collegial project, so if people disagree with you, don't take it personally and assume they're on the opposing side of the real-world dispute. Instead, try to understand the Wikipedia way of consensus and of balance of third-party sources - seek further explanation, listen to what other people are saying, and assume good faith a little more.
• I don't think English is your first language (and I mean no offence by that), and I think I see you misunderstanding subtleties of the language on occasion (for example, "political" does not necessarily imply "party"). So if you see some words that upset you, try asking for further explanation and you may well find it's just another of those innocent misunderstandings. Actually, even when people are using their mother tongues fluently, the internet is still a poor medium for personal communication - we don't get all of those body-language signals that we rely on heavily in face-to-face conversation, for example.
• If in doubt, ask a friend. Yogesh has plenty of experience here and knows his way round Wikipedia well, and he has offered some wise advice already. He's a helpful chap, and I feel sure he wouldn't mind if you asked him for advice from time to time. (And I'm always happy to further explain anything I say too - please just ask).
• Yogesh has suggested you might benefit from leaving the Thiyya dispute for a while and working on something less controversial, and I think that is good advice - unfamiliarity with the project's methods does not combine well with starting out in an area in which one is passionately involved.

Anyway, your account is unblocked now, so welcome back. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable advice zebedee, just with the English. Yup, English is only one of many languages I speak, certainly English is main language where I live. ( your political campaigning on Wikipedia has gone on for too long) this block warning appeared on my user page as soon as I commented on SNDP. SNDP associated with political party, SNDP Head recently announced that they are going to get involved in Kerala politics soon. You know that, many admins commenting there are not actually coming from India, and they actually can't understand a major part of the discussion in ezhava talk page, especially when it comes politics, culture and rituals. We speak about office politics and in that context the talk is not about political parties, we all know that. I have been living in an English speaking country for the last 18 yrs and I'm confident that I'm not too bad in that language. Anyway thanks for unblocking. Have a good weekend irajeevwiki talk 04:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Rajeev: Zebedee has been unusually lenient and understanding in un-blocking you, he has gone out of the way to make this good faith gesture, please take his advice to heart, it is very well written prose and very accurate, (except perhaps for the English part, I think your problem (quite understandable), is your inability to understand the nuances of Wikipedia)). Please do a lot of main space non-controversial edits. I wish you the best. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Folks. Yes, sorry Rajeev if I misunderstood your command of English - I'm sure Yogesh is right that it was actually just unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia ways of doing things (and the difficulties of communication that this medium brings in general). As an aside, I'm always impressed by people who have multilingual skills - in addition to my native English all I can manage is a very poor amount of Thai (and that's even after having had a Thai wife for 25 years and spending a large amount of each year in Thailand) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentations

Unless you lay off the unfounded accusations and misrepresentations, as made in this series of edits earlier today, then I rather think you are going to find yourself blocked once more. Why not do as Yogesh has suggested: drop the Ezhava/Thiyya issue for a while and concentrate on other subjects? You need to understand more about why we operate as we do and you need to stop digging a hole for yourself. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What makes you so sensitive? Why can't he be ignored? If he gets the same response at all the forums he addresses won't it dawn on him that he is not right? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Rajeev, I think I've been very considerate towards you and have assumed your problems here partly stemmed from your not properly understanding Wikipedia's policies - and I was happy to unblock you as an act of good faith. However, if you continue the forum shopping and personal attacks, that good faith is going to evaporate quickly and you are going to have problems. Both of your forum shopping attempts, at the Noticeboard for Indian Topics and at the Help Desk, contain thinly-veiled personal attacks (even if they don't actually name the individuals you are attacking). So please, heed the advice you got at the Help Desk and that previously offered by other people, re-read Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks and assuming good faith - and stop the former and try to do some of the latter. And please bear in mind the discretionary sanctions that are in force on caste-related articles. The community has given admins the power to unilaterally ban individuals from specific topics or topic areas, or to block as we think appropriate. You really are getting close to your last chance now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussions not blocks are the way forward. Words never killed anyone. I reiterate that I don't understand why anyone could get so defensive. I don't think Rajeev is right.[3][4] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, words can have a very damaging effect on a project like this. Constant low-level attacks on our hard-working and productive editors wears them down, frustrates them, and slowly destroys their willingness to keep contributing their lengthy hours and their hard work. Those hardworking editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and though we do want more newcomers, that should not be at the expense of driving away established expert content-creators. If Irajeevwiki wants to remain part of this project, he must stop the attacks - and that is not negotiable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree he must stop attacks. That is non-negotiable, but wouldn't it be better if that happens because he finally understands that he is wrong, and not because he is gagged by a block or a ban? Wouldn't editors need to work less hard if there are others to share the burden? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Another important point is that Rajeev is not edit warring/ socking or the like, he is not happy with what we've told him and so he is seeking a second opinion. Though he shouldn't have attacked us in the process. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely would be better if he stopped the attacks through understanding. But if he doesn't, then he will be stopped by other means -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be both unnecessary and unfortunate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least we're half-agreed! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually Rajeev isn't forum shopping, he is isn't happy with what he has been told by us, he is looking for other opinions, it would have been perfect had he used a neutral language, though there is no doubt regarding the replies he would have got. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, going from forum to forum when you don't get the answer you want seems pretty much a definition of forum shopping to me, but I won't press the point - all that matters now is how Rajeev reacts to what he is being told in all of the places he's asking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Help us improve the Wikipedia Education Program

Hi Irajeevwiki! As a student editor on Wikipedia, you have a lot of valuable experience about what it's like to edit as a part of a classroom assignment. In order to help other students like you enjoy editing while contributing positively to Wikipedia, it's extremely helpful to hear from real student editors about their challenges, successes, and support needs. Please take a few minutes to answer these questions by clicking below. (Note that the responses are posted to a public wiki page.) Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Sage Ross (WMF), 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi! You made an edit request[5]], it was rejected on purely procedural grounds, the article isn't edit protected, so you could go ahead and edit it yourself. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks yogesh. irajeevwiki talk 14:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/THIYYA concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/THIYYA, 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) 00:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: THIYYA

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 if you feel they have been resolved.

• 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 . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! irajeevwiki talk 22:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have resubmitted the article. Thiyyar is a separate caste and there are similarities with Ezhava but the caste is distinct from ezhava there fore I request you to review your decision to decline the article from being published.irajeevwiki talk 22:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Whatsapp number please

I'm adhithya kiran 9061460290

Kozhikode perambra Now in bengaluru

Whatsapp me.

Thiyya wikipedia page matter Kalangot (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Thiyya migration.jpg

The file File:Thiyya migration.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)