User talk:Kandathil

Speedy deletion nomination of Sri M


A tag has been placed on Sri M requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. Slon02 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC) naveenpf (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Bangalore
Please stop POV pushing on Bangalore. Just to let you know, that Bangalore is a featured article and any changes you want to make has to be discussed on the talk page to gain collaborative consensus. &mdash; Abhishek  Talk to me 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Bangalore. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash; Abhishek  Talk to me 17:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bangalore. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. &mdash; Abhishek  Talk to me 06:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Please be aware of wikipedias policy on socpuppetry. You should not try to add to point without logging in. &mdash; Abhishek  Talk to me 16:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Kandathil for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.  Lynch 7  16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked 1 week for sock puppetry. –MuZemike 22:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Kandathil for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.  Lynch 7  18:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)