User talk:Wading through the miasma

Kalyan Sundaram[edit]

What was your reasoning for removing the speedy deletion tag on Kalyan Sundaram? Inks.LWC (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as per above, please don't remove templates, if you wish you may contest it. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has rather collected the facts from the said link, than copy pasted the whole article, as alleged. And I remove the tag, as I feel that the author has done a commendable job in creating this page.

Than please allow an admin to review, you are more than welcome to contest deletion. please use correct procedures G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is said in the complaint that only the author cannot remove the tag, while all other regular wikipedia readers can. Hence I exercising my right.

User:Manorathan[edit]

Hello, Have you also edited using this account? If so you should be aware of WP:SOCK as you are in breach of it. Declaring it now would save yourself a lot of hassle, otherwise you are likely to receive a block. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥

I edited this article to remove the potential matches between the said link and this page.

Could you please stick to that account then? You are breach of WP:SOCK something which you could be blocked for. For what its worth I beleive the improvements you made were enough to prevent it from being deleted but you must trust the process, they are there for a reason. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 14:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to which account? I dont get you.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Stockton[edit]

Hi there, regarding this AfD, I have voted "strong keep" and I hope my reasoning there will explain why in more detail, but I just thought I would let you know that Test cricket, which is what Stockton had played, is one of the forms of major cricket (see footnote three of that article). As I have said at the AfD, it is easy to understand how you missed this. Happy editing, Jenks24 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case[edit]

Hi, Your name has been suggested in a sockpuppetry case. Please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manorathan and defend yourself. Thanks for your contribution to my articles. freewheeler 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs)

It is not all darkness...[edit]

Please understand that other editors DO see the contributions you have made when editing as User:Manorathan as notable enough for Wikipedia, and through the various deletion discussions or tags they WILL be saved and improved to serve the project. I write to caution you removing of the various tags placed by User:MarnetteD on your contributions is not vandalism, as they have been done by experienced editors acting in good faith and through their understanding of our guidelines and policies. I ask that you understand that the processes here DO work and ask that you never resort to use of sockpuppet acounts out of frustration. If you were to follow the procedure on the User:Manorathan talk page and state that you now understand this and promise to never use do it again, I feel confident that your editing privilages for the account User:Manorathan will be quickly restored. And please, always feel free to ask others for assistance, as many are happy to help. For example, my improved version of Freaky Chakra can be seen at Talk:Freaky Chakra (Movie)/Temp, and will soon replace the one that has caused concerns. Have faith. And above all have patience. Best wishes, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that things do not go well. My own thought was that while a new editor feels targeted by another, he rarely knows it is against the rules when frustration drives him to create a second account... and if he were to acknowledge his misunderstanding, and promise to not repeat such actions, editing privilages might be returned. Administrators that have the special tools to know such things, have made the determination that this account is either the same individual as Manorathan or is acting on his behalf. It is unlikely that any arguments you put forth will change their minds. Again, sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 16 May 2011 (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).

Wading through the miasma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a colleague of User: Manorathan and I sit next to him in his office. I am not the sockpuppet of User: Manorathan Wading through the miasma (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have examined the editing history of both of you, and I do not have the slightest doubt that this is either sockpuppetry or meat puppetry. (More likely the former, but it makes no difference.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2011 (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.

And yet at his page he says he does not know you (The cock hasn't even crowed three times!). Which is it? Daniel Case (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2011 (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).

Wading through the miasma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

He doesn't know me. I know User: Manorathan by name. I don't want to reveal my identity due to personal preferences. I am not his sockpuppet. Hence, please unblock me.

Decline reason:

One open unblock request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2011 (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.

Well, he's going to know who you are now, after you've said you sit next to him, isn't he? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suppose he wouldn't because there are too many options. He could have a doubt. If he did, he would have called me up which he didn't. But, I don't care. I am not his sockpuppet. It is ridiculous that I am being blocked. Wading through the miasma (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]