User talk:RajaRajaCholan

RajaRajaCholan, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi RajaRajaCholan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

Your addition to Sangamithra has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Diff: [1] Content you submitted here can be found verbatim here. It is a basic concept in academia that you do not copy content from other sources. WP:PLAGIARISM, in addition to being a violation of copyright, is academically dishonest and lazy, is no different from theft, and is not tolerated at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Vivegam. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diff: [2] Unless you happen to be the living incarnation of Rotten Tomatoes, please don't add summaries of critical response unless they come directly from an established, reputable source. It's not our job to draw conclusions in articles, especially about subjective matters. This would constitute original research. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: this, where you switch "mixed" to "negative", this is not constructive when the source in the article describes the critical response as mixed. The edit summary you pasted was one of my standard summaries, and it's clear that you don't understand what my summary meant. It means that phrasing such as "mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" or "positive to mixed" or "negative to mixed" are meaningless and shunned by the community. The community doesn't seem to have a problem with "mixed", and I'm baffled how you'd think to change it to negative. Also, please stop marking your edits as minor. This feature is for cosmetic changes only, like typo fixes, adding wikilinks, etc. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah okay..!! - RajaRajaCholan

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Vickydvignesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is not a Sock puppetry account, I have not done any kinda wrong/unfair edits without providing references and sources. I am just here improve some skills. so please unblock my account because this is a false claim.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Please log in with your original account should you wish to submit an unblock request for consideration. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2017 (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.

You would need to request an unblock from your first account. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, LOL what are you talking about this is my only account in Wikipedia.RajaRajaCholan (talk) 8:39 PM, 20 September 2017 (UTC)