User talk:Sekharlk

Did you read the link I sent you to? IF you wish to re-add the details, please either closely paraphrase the wording in the articles, or try and write as if you are sympathetic to the other point of view. If you haven't read it before, read WP:NPOV. When making major edits of the sort you are, saying things like 'everyone knows' isn't helpful. You shouldn't make any claims beyond what is said in the articles; not even something that seems obvious to you. That's WP:OR. Also please read WP:3RR. Relata refero (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

This user id is of an idividual. It is unfortunate that he is blamed of being a puppet of SUCIIndia or Unitysuci. All three are accounts handled by seperate users.

Decline reason:

See the Checkuser case —Daniel Case (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please read the comments by idependant editors such as User: Soman. This user did not do anything to evade 3rr. It was only a on few occassions that this user ever accessed the page of SUCIndia.

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirms you as a sockpuppet. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 14:33, 1 April 2008 (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

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).

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

Request reason:

This block was not for creating a puppet. This block was made by claiming that I abused my account. This is not true. Please note that it is a puppet of User: Kuntan who abused me and not me who abused any one. See the personal abuses that he has made in my page and in SUCI page. Why do the admins ignore the comments of other editors who were actively involved in this issue. There are at least two editors who have made substantial contributions to Wikipedia who have demanded to unblock this account and/or User: Suciindia

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

.--Sekharlk (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]