User talk:Karunyan

License tagging for Image:Karunya Fasting Prayer.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Karunya Fasting Prayer.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 07:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits was a violation of policy - expiration dates on protective blocks are set by WP administrators, and regular editors cannot issue unblocks, nor will altering the listed date make a block expire any faster. If your intent was to vandalize, then rest assured there are WP policies against this, and may be invoked if you continue similarly inappropriate edits. This edit has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Dyanega 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Karunya_Fasting_Prayer.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Karunya_Fasting_Prayer.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Nv8200p talk 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Prince of Persia
No, I have not yet bought it, but I intend to. Actually, my aunt works for Ubisoft (the developers of this game) and she's getting me a limited edition copy. I do not intend to leak it, though. -- The Guy complain edits 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

GTA 4 sizes
The sizes of the discs are: 7553906688 bytes for disc 1. 7314339840 bytes for disc 2. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's too big for my machine too. Rockstar screwed up. It is way too big and it cannot scale. Either they are idiots or they just rushed it out for christmas release. I hope they will make patches to make it scale so it can run on old machines too. And use multiple GPU's (SLI). And I still do not understand how they make a game which will only run on WinXP SP3 and Vista SP1. The only dependency should be DirectX. It should not rely on the NET framework for example. So yes, it is bloated. The size is probably because of a large amount of textures. I think that is a minor problem compared to the fact that very few people can run the game without problems... --Ysangkok (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Do NOT ever mark good faith edits as vandalism, as you did to List of comic book superpowers. I have rollbacked your edits. If you want more information, go to User:Thefro552 and he'll tell you that the list only gives entries for individuals who have articles. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains much. I thought it was extremely odd of you to do that. Just want to make sure though, you are clear on what I said right? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

March 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of The Clique series characters. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''Stalking others contribs and doing random reverts just to do them is both childish and against policy. You are clearly acting in a WP:POINTy fashion just because your fancrufty edits were rejected at List of Inuyasha characters. If you do not stop, you will end up getting blocked.'' -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please consider withdrawing the 3RR report
Hello Karunyan. I've been studying your report at WP:AN3. Your last six article edits have been reverts of recent changes by Collectonian, at a variety of different articles. Superficially, this appears to be WP:STALKING. Especially strange was your edit summary here, "Reverted good faith edits by Collectonian; Just trollin'." There is still time for you to withdraw the 3RR report, and I would suggest that you do that. That might be the least awkward way to get out of a bad situation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Coming back and starting this pointless stalking again is a sure way to get yourself blocked Karunyan. I have already alerted an administrator to your returning to continue the same behavior you were warned against.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of The Clique series characters. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You were already warned by an admin for this after your previous behavior. Now please just stop it already. Don't even act like you care about comprised of/comprises now. You are making a very blatant and lame excuse to try to continue an edit war you started when you wikihounded me previously. An administrator has already been made aware that you have continued this behavior at your return. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As promised, you have been reported -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at List of The Clique series characters. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.  Sandstein  08:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at List of InuYasha characters. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for wikihounding, edit warring, and abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Lesson to self: Taking a break from editing isn't the best thing to do when you're blocked... Karunyan (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like this block was extended following discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604, where there's ample evidence of block evasion and other policy violations. Now, checkuser evidence suggests that this account and Kagome1977 are related; your request above claims that you're distinct people... so, you're either lying about sockpuppetry or you're engaging in some sort of coordinated harassment? Neither sounds very appealing, really, so this might be a good time to offer some credible alternative explanation. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no coordination and in my opinion no harassment. I hate carrying the burden of proof here but preserving my identity on Wikipedia just might be worth it. I've had a few interactions with this person (not always pleasant) and on one such interaction they showed frustration over "Collectonian" and "Wikipedia". Being a person who frequently edits Wikipedia, I checked out Collectonian and confirmed her behaviour. What I did not know was that Kagome1977 (most probably the same person) had connected to Wikipedia from the same IP's that I currently use. I did not "harass" her in any meaning of the term. All I did was go through her history and revert some of her recent edits that seemed inappropriate or unproductive. Now I concede that my edits weren't exactly in "good faith". But they were certainly not vandalism or even disruptive by themselves (without Collectonian's constant retaliation).......Karunyan (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that my "hounding" of Collectonian has been used as an excuse by Collectonian and User:Jack Merridew to "hound" me in return. How do you explain this, for example? If she can accuse me of stalking just because it was her edit that I happened to revert in an article of interest to me, I can accuse her of the same thing. It goes both ways, you know.......Karunyan (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the abuse of multiple accounts? Can you promise that you will not use them again, whether through socking or meatpuppetry? Because there are an awful lot... Origamiteⓣⓒ 17:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will never use any account other than this one even if I need to, which I won't. Karunyan (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal
Karunyan claims to not have made this unblock request with this edit. Given that it was made while logged in, I think the "Seriously, though..." section of WP:SOMEONEDIDIT applies. Origamiteⓣⓒ 17:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If Karunyan is right in stating that edit isn't theirs, then the account obviously is compromised and someone else is using it to make elaborate edits on the talk page in Karunyan's name. That cannot be tolerated. If he's wrong, he's lying, and we cannot tolerate that either. Talk page access revoked. Huon (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing: Wikistalking, edit warring, and abusing multiple accounts. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
 * The user explained on UTRS that they deliberately posted the unblock request in a "broken" way so it wouldn't activate (since they were still drafting it), then "fixed" it for them, which is why they say they didn't make it. That explanation convinces me, so I've restored talk page access. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, then I apologize. I with that they had noted it in their edit summary. Origamiteⓣⓒ 20:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read the ban discussion. The banning policy says that the ban discussion should "allow the subject editor to post a response." I was never invited to do that. There was no vote and only 3 people (hardly a consensus) supported it. But of course, if you want to have another discussion, be my guest. It's not like I have a choice.

I'm bothering with the following ONLY because you are insisting:

Meat puppets: please do not interpret my attempt at humour as not being contrite. But how can anyone "create" a meat Puppet? Unless they are a god or something. Even If you grow up have a kid and then use the kid as a puppet, don't you think "create" is too strong a word? Anyway, since you and Origamite have brought up meat puppets, let me try to answer that. I honestly have almost no recollection of my interactions with Kagome1977. The only thing I remember was I was working in the chennai Hilton hotel at the time and she once complained to me that she "was pissed of by this Collectonian on wikipedia" or something like that. Then I logged in on the hotel's wifi (I guess the same one that kagome1977 was using) connection and found and reverted some of Collectonian's edits. That was it. We went our separate ways. That is why I said I was nobody's sockpuppet only a possible meat puppet. Nobody even suspected that we knew each other. But jpgordon, on seeing my unblock request did a check user and blocked Kagome1977. So no, I did not have any meat puppets.

As for sockpuppets, I don't remember, man. It was a long time ago. I created all of them only to hound Collectonian and not for deceptive purposes. Apart from the ones at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karunyan and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karunyan, the only one I can remember is User:TheKarunyan. Since creating the last of these, I have not made any substantial edits to Wikipedia.

There is one more thing about the community ban. Of the three users that expressed support, AnmaFinotera was the one I was having a dispute with. And even IF Tim Song can be considered an uninvolved administrator, that is only two people supporting a community ban. Nothing to close a ban discussion as ban.