User talk:M.srihari

Welcome![edit]

Hello, M.srihari, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Uncletomwood (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

to clarify whether "number of carriers planned" means "number of carriers that have confirmed "design plans"? Please help me with... In the article of Vikrant-class aircraft carrier,there has been a dispute regarding the interpretation of facts since the existing information on public domain is clumsy and the editor's interpretations are different from one another.So is seek a clarifiaction on the issue with this the difference between saying "having confirmed plans for 2 carriers" and "there are only 2 carriers planned".Please help to solve this issue. Srihari
Best thing to do is go to the talk page and have the discussion.
117.198.184.5 (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Unable to solve a issue in Vikrant-class aircraft carrier even after several discussions occured.Request help from other editors too. Please help me with... In the article of Vikrant-class aircraft carrier,there has been a dispute regarding the interpretation of facts since the existing information on public domain is clumsy and the editor's interpretations are different from one another.Even after several discussions the solution seems to be a seas end.So is seek a clarification on the issue with this the difference between saying "having confirmed plans for 2 carriers" and "there are only 2 carriers planned".Please help to solve this issue.I request other editors to actively participate to solve this issue. Srihari

If no one can come to an agreement, then go for a Third Opinion. Your own user talk is not the place to solicit opinions. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use talk page of the Article.
117.198.184.5 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Supercarrier#Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 14:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, M.srihari. You have new messages at Jaaron95's talk page.
Message added 20:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JAaron95 (Talk) 20:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Supercarrier". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! JAaron95 (Talk) 09:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRDO AURA[edit]

@Nicky mathew: Hi. I saw you made some edits about the users of AURA. The expected tags were removed and also Indian Navy was taken out. As far a I checked, there is no official confirmation that it is only for IAF except some media buff. If there is one, then I request you to add it back there. I have found a source in which the information provided matches exactly to the info in the wikipedia article, except that it states Indian Navy also as the primary user. http://defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.aspx?id=huSU6cBsLiU= . As far as I know, even the AURA could be developed for The strategic Forces Command, as there is no official info on this black project. I expect your reply.M.srihari (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

Thank you for providing reference. bye Nicky mathew (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicky mathew:Thank you.

M.srihari (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

July 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of six weeks for sock puppetry. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User is apparently avoiding block per this diff. - BilCat (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've increased your block to indefinite for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I agree to make edits in my talk page and that of Mao Martin that Mao is my alternative account as per Wikipedia Guidelines on Sock puppets. I also agree to not to use the 117.201.42.194 IP again

Decline reason:

After your block expires you should edit using this account only. PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As I stated on your puppet's Talk page, you have no legitimate basis for having an alternative account. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Thus, when your block expires, you will not be able to retain another account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23:The Wikipedia Policy on Sockpuppet states that a user is entitled to use a sockpuppet if he wishes to not reveal his original name elsewhere. It also clearly states that the wikipedia doesn't have any policy on editing while logged out. Mao Martin was created way before my block. But I do agree that it is wrong to edit while I have been blocked and also trying to cover my tracks as I did in Indian Space Shuttle page. I now wish to clear those mistakes. Awaiting your reply.M.srihari (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: And I have been blocked permanently. So Until the issue is resolved, This block will never expire.M.srihari (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight: Sir, My block has been extended to indefinite. It will never expire.M.srihari (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were initially blocked for six weeks, but your block was extended to indefinite after your last block evasion. I suggest you come back in six months with an unblemished socking record and try again.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Thank You. Is it good if I make edits in this talk page as a way of communicating with other editors in order to express my views, which are, of course, civil and non personal?M.srihari (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean about editing articles on Wikipedia, no, it's not okay. When you are blocked, you are obviously not permitted to edit articles directly. That means you also cannot edit articles indirectly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:But a small clarification, I'm not gonna edit them anyway. I just wish to express my opinion to other editors and try to help improving other pages by providing citations,etc. Why should this be banned?M.srihari (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification doesn't work if you add the reply or ping as an amendment to your initial comment. I already explained in my first comment why you can't expess your opinion to help improve articles. It's an end-run around your block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Please see the "DRDO AURA" section above. Why should I not do such contributions. Is the block meant to stop me from doing any vandalism and revenge edits or to stop me from contributing itself?M.srihari (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeated myself until I was blue in the face about your not using this page to contribute to Wikipedia. You did it anyway, so I've revoked your access to this page. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems[edit]

If you are successful in negotiating an unblock, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Copypaste. Edits you made under your sock account did not conform to our copyright policy. Unless sources are verifiably public domain or compatibly licensed, you may not take content directly from your sources but must put it in your own words, except for brief and clearly marked quotations. Sources like [1] may not be freely copied, even in part. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

M.srihari (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16952 was submitted on Nov 21, 2016 11:09:39. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

M.srihari (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24610 was submitted on Apr 05, 2019 09:09:58. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

M.srihari (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24613 was submitted on Apr 05, 2019 11:43:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access[edit]

Please note that talk page access was restored in 2016, and an unblock request can be made here on this page using...
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

My block has been in effect for almost 3 years, since my last request. I have made mistakes and learnt from it. Restoring my access would help me serve the wikipedia as I did before, such as Removal of fake articles eg.)"Avinash Class Submarine",etc. I would adhere to the guidelines of wikipedia community M.srihari (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock Request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

1=My block has been in effect for almost 3 years, since my last request. I have made mistake of indulging in Edit warring and sock-puppetry in order to help me with edit warring. I have learnt from these mistakes. I sincerely apologize for them. I have learnt that proactively engaging with other users and not edit war is way to solve issues and importantly, to be patient and civil whilst expressing my views. I will never repeat such erratic behavior in future. Restoring my access would help me serve the wikipedia as I did before, such as Removal of fake articles eg.)"Avinash Class Submarine",etc. I would adhere to the guidelines of wikipedia communityM.srihari (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.