User talk:M.srihari

Welcome!

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!

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!

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.

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

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.

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

@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

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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=''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'' |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=''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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=''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'' |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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 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]