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)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , 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)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , 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
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)
JAaron95 ( Talk) 20:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
@ 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
Thank you for providing reference. bye Nicky mathew ( talk) 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla ( talk) 13:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
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.
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 community M.srihari ( talk) 08:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , 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)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , 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
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)
JAaron95 ( Talk) 20:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
@ 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
Thank you for providing reference. bye Nicky mathew ( talk) 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla ( talk) 13:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
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.
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 community M.srihari ( talk) 08:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.