User talk:DileepKS69

Welcome!

 * }

October 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kochi. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  BINOY  Talk 09:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

SOCIAL SERVICE
PLS ADVICE ON THE MATTER SOCIAL SERVICE ADDED IN PAGE KOCHI IF U COULD PLEASE SUPPORT WITH REF SOURCES BECAUSE TECNICALLY I AM NOT CLEAR ON ADDING SOURCES THANKS...14:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Shankarr1977 (talk)

Your recent edits
Hi DileepKS69, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Please read this for details. I noticed that you are removing the line making it the largest urban agglomeration in the state and the second largest city in Kerala after the state capital in the article Kochi by arguing it is vandalism. Please note that this article is about the city and Kochi is the second largest city in Kerala. It is not vandalism. You also added Kochi ranks first in the total number of tourists visiting Kerala without any citations. Please see this. Kochi is a former featured article. Try to add contents with appropriate citations or it will affect the credibility of the article. Happy editing :)....  BINOY  Talk 09:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your Reply
I have read your answers...

''1. The page is about Kochi, and the UA surrounding it. That fact is clearly mentioned in the first paragraph. I don't see any problem with that. I am not aware of any rule saying that a page should only refer to a city? Please correct me if I am wrong.''

Note: Note that the page is about the city. I am not saying that a page should only refer to a city. The population of the UA is can mentioned there but the city population has more priority than the UA as this is the city page.

2. Citation is provided for the tourism information. Not sure if someone removed it. If so, I will put it back.

Note: If you got credible source, no problem :).

3. The assertion of 'second largest city after the capital' does not add any value to the page. It only boosts the ego of the first. You have plenty of places and opportunities to do that. I don't see any good reason to retain it.

Note: I don't understand how second largest city after the capital affect the article...!!! It described the population of the city just like the UA population which has less priority here.

Happy editing..:)  BINOY  Talk 10:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WARNING for EDIT-WARRING
Please stop reverting constantly , as you are doing in Kochi. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.--Induzcreed (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that it is you who is doing the edit war. You are given ample opportunity to prove your point, but you are going ahead with the edit war. I am sure the Wiki admins would appreciate the fact and take the necessary action

DileepKS69 (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting/deleting constantly , as you are doing in Kochi. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision/deletion you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert/delete again unwantedly, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.--Kottayamkaaran (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear editors who want to issue warning on this subject. Please read the Talk:Kochi page, and comment on the issues raised, before issuing the warnings.

DileepKS69 (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of software exports
Dileep, I have replied on article talk page about the percentage. I have also reverted your edits in Kochi page which is related to this discussion. Hope you wont take it offensive. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 09:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Kochi page
Hi Dileepks69, I have seen the ongoing edit war in Kochi page. I am busy these days, and hence couldnt spend quality time in wiki. I will post my thoughts in the article talk page, by tomorrow. I am sorry for the delayed response. Thanks, --Chektomate (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning
You've been trying to WP:OWN the Kochi article. The prior protection and subsequent unprotection doesn't seem to have got the message across that tendentious editing is not welcome here. If you continue to indulge in tendentious editing, you will be blocked. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Spaceman, I deny any attempt to WP:OWN the page. Every edit I did was based on valid reference, and in the matter that caused the protection of the article, which was of an editorial propriety, I accepted the consensus. I always use the talk page to discuss, and never used bogus arguments in the talk pages. I believe I am being wrongly accused of conducting tendentious editing here.


 * Being a rather new member of the community, I solicit your advice on this. I intend to play by the letter and spirit of the rules, so please help me.

DileepKS69 (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * JUst starting a discussion on the talk page doesn't give you license to make any edits you wish when other editor(s) have disagreed. You've got to stop that. The page history is nothing but edits and reverts ever since the protection expired and most of those reverts are by you. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't done that. Once a discussion starts, I have not done the edit, pending consensus. I have seen other editors (who happen to complain about me) do that a lot. After being appraised of the WP:BRD concept, I have followed it by the letter. If you can kindly point to the infraction, I shall learn from that and avoid the same in the future.


 * Thank you for the helps, and I look forward to your continued guidance.

DileepKS69 (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Spicedman,

The following is the list of edits I did to articles after the protection episode, till you issued the warning. Please specify which ones of these caused the warning you gave me, so that I can learn from them. As I look at it, none of them falls into the actions you allege me of.

Explain to me, please, because I want to know. Else, please remove the warning.
 * 08:07, 15 November 2010 (diff | hist) Kochi ? (Undid revision 396829180 by 115.184.34.220 (talk)It IS a major station. See talk page. Waiting for the editor to undo.)
 * 07:45, 15 November 2010 (diff | hist) Transport in Kochi ? (Undid revision 396725454 by Induzcreed (talk)Link to a city in the name of a Rly division.)
 * 07:22, 15 November 2010 (diff | hist) Kochi ? (?Rail: Removed link to a city in the name of a railway division. If you have a page for the Rly division, please link there. Please use the Talk page to discuss.)
 * 12:28, 14 November 2010 (diff | hist) Kochi ? (?Demographics: Fixed the url of ref.)
 * 11:49, 14 November 2010 (diff | hist) Kochi ? (?Demographics: The statement 'lowest rank' is incorrect. Now we have the original source of the cited ref, which says Rank 23. This information may be added as a consolidated statement.)
 * 11:36, 14 November 2010 (diff | hist) Kochi ? (?Demographics: Updated population numbers based on Census Data)
 * 11:29, 14 November 2010 (diff | hist) Kochi ? (?Rail: Added some more railway stations serving the city.)
 * 09:11, 14 November 2010 (diff | hist) Kochi ? (Changed population numbers based on Census of India reference.)

Thanks, DileepKS69 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking Policy Advice
I am repeatedly seeing allegations of owning, tendentious editing, soapboxing and other crimes. Being a rather newbie, it raises a lot of questions in my mind. I want to do things in the correct way. I am trying to get answers to these questions. Comments are invited.

1. Does adding information to a page, supported by valid reference, mean soapboxing? Purely because those information seem to paint the city in a good light? Is there a policy that an editor need to add certain amount of 'bad' information as well, to maintain the image of balance?

2. Does focusing on a single subject/area, mean soapboxing? Is there a policy that an editor should work on diverse subjects to maintain an image of balance?

3. Doesn't adding links to another page that is contextually irrelevant, mean soapboxing? Shouldn't those irrelevant links be removed?

4. Isn't the WP:BRD principle the correct way to resolve a disagreement? Doesn't it mean that the 'state before the edit' should be the state while the discussion happens?

5. What is the correct way, when an editor refuses to co-operate to discuss?

Thanks in advance for the comments/advice. DileepKS69 (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dileep, you need not be thinking so hard about the wiki policies. There are some simple steps to do happy editing. Here goes My advice: --Chektomate (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Be Neutral and edit with an un-biased mind
 * Always keep in mind that this is just an article, and your life is not dependent upon it.
 * If some thing negative about your city is there in the city page, please under stand that your city will not be destroyed by Aliens because of such statements in wikipedia.
 * Please go with consensus, and be happy always.
 * Appreciate others not only for the good points about your city, but also about valid negative points.

Hi Dileep,

You did good in the Kochi article. But the problem is you only want to add the positive things in the article which praise the city. If you find a negative thing about the city in the article, you put all your efforts to remove that. (see the talk page). An article must contain all kinds of information about the subject. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a brochure about places. There is so many other subjects are in Wikipedia and note that Kochi is only one of the 3,475,400 ++ (and increasing....) articles in English Wikipedia!!!!. Nothing will happen to your city by this article. So be Neutral and be happy always :). Happy editing... BIN O Y  Talk 17:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Check/Binoy, Neither of you answered the questions. Instead you are recycling the same ideas that had been tossed around here. Still I do not see why I am the target of all the hostility.

1. I haven't added something without solid reference, and I have always respected consensus. Yes, I argued my viewpoint on the talk page. That is the whole idea, isn't it?

2. I haven't removed something without proper reason attributed, and an invitation to talk. I have always respected BRD principle, unless the other editor blatantly ignores it, in which case, I did try to bring the state back to BRD.

3. I had always been civil in the discussion, despite provocation.

Binoy, you said 'But the problem is you only want to add the positive things in the article which praise the city. If you find a negative thing about the city in the article, you put all your efforts to remove that.'. Does that mean you answer my first question as yes? Please confirm if that was the intention. Because if you do, that goes against my basic understanding of Wikipedia, and I would need consensus on that notion.

Thanks, DileepKS69 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You first pass the first standard, Granpa :-) Then you can ask questions on second standard syllabus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.160.8 (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Replying based on note on my talk page
 * 1) Repeating the same thing again and again in the face of reasoned arguments from other editors is soapboxing (an example was your initial response to the slum image)
 * 2) There is no requirement to focus on multiple areas, however when your focus is to promote a particular topic, behavioral issues become a problem, e.g. your reactions to other editors contributions (whether they are good or bad).
 * 3) - 5. The problem here is that you have sought to revert any and every bit of text not associated with your view under the guise of BRD by just stating something on the talk page. Therefore your good edits can not be differentiated from the bad. If you're in the right, there are other editors who will come to that conclusion and consensus will be reached. You seem to want everything in a certain manner and exhibit WP:OWN tendencies which is not good. This is a wiki, some things take time so you'll have to act accordingly.
 * cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How to cite RTI (Right to Information) Responses
I have a few RTI responses I received. I want to use them as reference for edits. What is the best way to go about it? It is the information within the response that matters, not any image or work of art.

1. Scan and post an image of the document to commons? 2. Scan the document into PDF and host on a website, and cite as web link? Please advice.
 * You can cite the reference without a link, for example the way a book is cited. While a link to the document is nice, it is not required, and in some instances might itself be a copyright violation. I hope this helps.  My 76 Strat  03:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this article contains many references I included from a freedom of information act request. Mostly the General orders shown, listed as GO some number. Even though they are not linked, they are accurate and can be verified. And they are appropriate. Kind regards  My 76 Strat  04:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

TVM City
Thiruvananthapuram ranks first in the number of international tourists in Kerala. Actually this is about tvm district or tvm city? I think its about tvm district. So we can remove it from TVM city article. Check this http://tourism.gov.in/pplan/Kerala.pdf and go the 46th page.

--Bijuts (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

When Kovalam is added to the city limits, it practically brought in most of the tourist visits into city limit, so the assertion is correct.

DileepKS(talk) 00:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

TRV
Lower fourth seems to be edit warring. Please initiate a discussion on TRV's talk page. I'll inform other editors to look into the matter. Meanwhile I have also commented out the distance info because you changed it and Lower fourth has reverted it. I believe he has initiated the edit war which is why I have given only him a warning. Please raise the concerned issuses on the talk page. Thanks, &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WARNING
So, you are a forumer from Skyscrapercity and trying to enact the edit wars in wikipedia too! I request you to stay away from Edit wars, and ask your friends (Moutainwhiskey, Bijuts, and many anonymous IPs) also to avoid edit warring. --Samaleks (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for edit warring, as you did at Thiruvananthapuram. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Well, you learn something new every day. Today I learned that seeking help nicely to resolve a non-dispute can result in a block. I also learned that the way to defeat any edit is to adamantly keep arguing, and claiming that consensus is not reached. Unfortunately, I happen to be too nice to use such tactics myself. Like many situations in life, being nice and playing by the rules is often tough.

I still haven't lost faith in the system yet. As advised, I shall proceed to the dispute resolution process once the block is lifted.

DileepKS(talk) 10:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can learn about WP:3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Reply to message on my tallk page

 * Surprising. Can you please try again? -- Aarem (Talk) 07:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If successful, pls drop me in my talk page. -- Aarem (Talk) 07:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Message from User:Induzcreed

 * See DileepKS69,I also haven't forgotten the way you fought and tried to HYPE your favourite place Kochi. Whatever edits I have made, and challenged you was based on facts, and not for hyping some city. You and your group of friends are now trying to open another war on Trivandrum page. I came to Trivandrum page, sensing this. Hope you don't take your pro-Kochi and anti-Thiruvananthapuram attitude here also, as you are doing in other forums.


 * I thought you might have learned from the BLOCK you got for edit-warring; but you haven't. Wikipedia is not a forum like the one you own for immediate actions. It will take its own time for reaching a consensus. Hope you got the point, and all the best for your wiki life. --Induzcreed (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Trivandrum International Airport
Hi please have a look at this edit. It contains addition of Malayalam title. Please check if the title is properly added by the IP. Thanks, &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 17:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for that. &mdash; Abhishek  Talk to me 08:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Meat Puppet
Thanks for asking Bijuts offline to make the revert. You are very cunning; and reminds me of the old fox story in Panchatantra (its a compliment). :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samaleks (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you walk away
The confrontation in which you are involved will only quiet with de-escalation. The better part of valor here is to walk away. - Philippe 07:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I'm pleased to hear it. Thank you.  - Philippe  07:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join the WikiProject Indian Roads
naveenpf (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to further 3O request
If the editor does not want to go with the the suggestions in the 3O, one should open up the discussion for request for comment. This will bring additional editors opinions to the subject.

I also saw that there was an RSN discussion relating to the topic. RSN is to be used primarily to find out if a source is reliable or not, not necessarily to support or oppose certain content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Thiruvananthapuram - the same article as your previous block for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene. Just my 2 cents. This user DileepKS69 was constantly edit-warring in Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram pages. He used to argue for very minute things without assuming GoodFaith. This user along with User:Mountainwhiskey (who is also blocked now) was trying to push strong POV in favor of Kochi in Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram pages. The editwarring tendency shown by DileepKS69 is very much evident from his contributions. I hope that from this second block, he will learn to be logical in Wikipedia. --Induzcreed (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason for my edit is clearly given in the talk page. IP Editors reverted the edit without giving any discussion in the talk page. I haven't violated the 3R rule either. There is no reason for the block. Editor Samaleks issued a warning, that too without making any effort of making his view in the Talk page, and I get a block for no reason. It is unfair.

How can someone resolve a dispute if the other editors refuse to discuss in the talk page? And me, the editor who actually try to discuss get a block.

Toddst1 has blocked me in the past also, based on similar complaints. I do not expect justice from him. I am doing this appeal just to make my side of the argument.

DileepKS(talk) 07:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to decline this yet, but ask you a couple of things: 1) have you read WP:EW and do you understand that you do not have to break WP:3RR to be blocked for edit-warring? 2) other than one meagre attempt to discuss on the talkpage (which was actually answered), what other steps in WP:DR have you tried ... including getting a third opinion or WP:RFC?  As an uninvolved party I find this block necessary to protect the page - so you might want to rethink your comments about the blocking admin  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I feel obliged to answer to the admin:

1. Yes, I know one do not have to break WP:3RR to be blocked. 2. No, there was no talk by anyone. None at all. For your kind reference, let me list what all happened on the page:


 * 09:25, 18 September 2011 Samaleks  (Undid revision 451080801 by DileepKS69. Dileep, I ask you to stop this editwarring. there is a talk page, utilize it first)
 * 09:05, 18 September 2011 DileepKS69  (Undid revision 451078939 by 218.186.16.225)There is no war. See (and use) the Talk page.)
 * 08:47, 18 September 2011 218.186.16.225 (dileep again doing ediwarring)
 * 07:08, 17 September 2011 DileepKS69  (Putting back the tag)
 * 12:37, 16 September 2011 192.193.164.9 (putting back the citation)
 * 12:22, 14 September 2011 DileepKS69  (Undid revision 450414271 by Aarem That ref also says the area of the city is 2192 sq km. Would you demand that also to be used? Reference clearly not reliable.)
 * 10:01, 14 September 2011 Aarem  (removing tag and adding a gov.ref)
 * 14:44, 11 September 2011 DileepKS69 (Added verify source tag)

And here is the history of the Talk page


 * 09:34, 18 September 2011 Samaleks (9,186 bytes) (?Verification needed tag added for the claim "Evergreen City")
 * 14:50, 11 September 2011 DileepKS69 (8,633 bytes) (?Verification needed tag added for the claim "Evergreen City": new section)

And I am warned by Samaleks at 09:29, 18 September 2011, that is even before he added his reply in the Talk page. And I am blocked at 11:13, 18 September 2011 by Toddst1.

No, no one cared to Talk. When there is no talk, how can one go for WP:3O? This is not the first time this tactics is used by Samaleks and his sock IPS. I know the pattern. Editing using IPS, (without giving any reason) and refusing to Talk is a standard strategy by them. Experience shows me that it is futile to plead them to Talk. If they are bonafide, why didn't they make their arguments against the edit clear on the Talk page? Samaleks is a senior editor. Why didn't he try to engage in Talk, before warning, and getting Toddst1 to block me?

I stick with my impression upon Toddst1 that he was unfair. I have no reason to reconsider that. I know the repercussions, and I will have to face that. I shall continue to abide by the rules (yes, I believe that I broke no rule here, neither in letter, nor in spirit) and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks for listening.

DileepKS(talk) 02:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/DileepKS69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Daniel beat me to declining your unblock request (we edit conflicted actually) but here is what I had intended to say. Yes, you did violate our sockpuppetry rules. You created an undisclosed second account and used it to edit the same articles as your main account. Such articles included Thiruvananthapuram, Cochin International Airport (and the talk page), National Highway 47 (India), and National Highway 49 (India). By your own admission, the second account was created because your main account is opposed by other editors. Therefore I don't even trust that you violated our rules by accident. --  At am a  頭 16:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/DileepKS69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this image description true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kochi_India_slums.jpg exits with some error in the description. Can you guys from Kochi verify it and if possible take a new picture and update it with the latest one.Kochikandavanachivenda (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

January 2013 unblock request

 * I may be prepared to unblock here, subject to the agreement of User:Toddst1. However before I do you will need to do the following:
 * Provide a list of all other accounts you've used or created,
 * Agree not to use any other account for editing in future (including editing while logged off),
 * Agree to discuss controversial changes on talk pages, per WP:BRD, rather than edit war, and
 * Acknowledge that any further violations may result in you being blocked indefinitely without further notice, and little chance of further unblocks.


 * Is this acceptable?  An  optimist on the  run!  12:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Optimist, thanks for the consideration. Here are my answers:


 * There was only one other id JRafale1978 that I used. It was done because certain users were hounding me to oppose every edit I did. It was never used to 1)bypass a block 2)at the same time with the other id. It was done under the bona fide understanding that it is legit. I am glad to note that Magog, the user who made the block, had agreed to that view later.
 * Of course I will not use any other account, or IP editing! If I had any inclination to violate any principles, would have I waited an year and try to get unblocked?
 * If you get the time, please review my edit history. I ALWAYS used the Talk page, and I shall continue to do so.
 * Yes, I acknowledge that any further violation will result in a permanent ban.

Thanks for the time and consideration

DileepKS(talk) 00:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppet investigation about you suggests there are other accounts you've used which you haven't listed here. This is the chance to be open and honest and make a complete list of your accounts. Until this is resolved I'm not prepared to unblock you.  An  optimist on the  run!  17:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am at a disadvantage here. How can I show that I have nothing to do with any other account, other than my own word? You have the means of checking the IPs, edit times, or whatever other things offered by the software. I normally edit from my home DSL by the nationwide ISP called BSNL, and also my workplace.

It is true that in the initial days I did try to co-ordinate with a few other people I met in online forums. That was before I was aware of the rule against co-ordinated editing. Once I was made aware of that, I totally stopped that effort, and made sure that I do not get into any edits started by others. I also requested them not to co-ordinate, and stop all communications among themselves. So, yes, there are a few editors out there with similar interests as myself, but no, I do not communicate with them at all.

I can honestly say that I was/am not involved with any other ids. I have only one point to make. If I was indeed this evil, multiple id person, would I have waited this long and requested an unblock?

DileepKS(talk) 01:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as a technical point here, ordinary administrators like myself don't have the ability to find out IP addresses. Thanks for clearing up your relationships with other users, and I'm glad your aware about co-ordinated editing. (It's generally known as Meat-puppetry, and regarded as bad a sock-puppetry). I see Beeblebrox has declined your current unblock request for the time being, but I'm still watching this page and intend to raise the unblock request at WP:AN in due course. In the meantime, can you clarify what you meant by "except as a regular user", as this seems to be a bit ambiguous. Sorry this is dragging on, but I want to get as much cleared up as I can before presenting your case at AN. Please be patient. Don't post another unblock request - as I said I'm still watching this page and will continue to do so until this is resolved.  An  optimist on the  run!  23:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

'regular user' means the millions of people who use wikipedia as a reference source. Just reading the articles. I have never did any edits after the block, because I know that is against the rules. This does not include Malayalam wikipedia where I am not blocked.

Ref meat puppetry, I wasn't aware of the rule against it. Sock is an obvious bad thing from a beginners POV, but the concept of meat puppetry was not that obvious, until it was brought to my attention.

Thanks for listening.

DileepKS(talk) 00:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Editing on other projects is fine, it's only on this project you're blocked. Indeed, a good record on another project can work in your favour. (For the convenience of other reviewers, DileepKS69's contributions are here.) I'll raise a discussion at AN tonight (UK time).  An  optimist on the  run!  06:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked for discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  An  optimist on the  run!  22:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked
Ok, after careful consideration I'm going to go out on a limb here and unblock you. I'm happy with your explanation about your sockpuppet, and accept that you won't use other accounts, or recruit other users to support your view. I still feel you may have problems with tenacious editing - i.e. repeatedly persisting in trying to force your opinion of what is correct into the article. On the other hand, this is not the reason you were blocked, so I'm not going to let that prevent me unblocking you. However, you may well be viewed with suspicion at first and come under careful scrutiny. Please, therefore, read WP:BRD carefully, and make sure you understand it. Make good use of discussions, and remember that you won't "win" every argument. If others disagree with you, accept defeat gracefully and move on to something different. Read this comment by Ritchie333 as well. I don't want to see you blocked again, so please be careful. Good luck!  An  optimist on the  run!  19:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I understand fully. Will comply.

DileepKS(talk) 06:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)