User talk:Parpann

Parpann, you are invited to the Teahouse!

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is clear from your response to this block (immediately create a new account, start re-adding the same material without discussion) that you are not likely to be able to follow Wikipedia's policies and processes, I have increased the block on your account to indefinite. You will be unblocked when you are able to convince reviewing administrators that you understand Wikipedia's policies and will abide by them. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:18, 23 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I am genuine editor and have never posted and abusive or defamatory articles , But when i try to edit two specific article mainly 1. Dayanidhi Maran and 2. Kalanithi Maran's articles i find my self being hounded couple of Vandalism Users who keep deleting my edits by abusing their Administrator rights and keep blocking me. My edits are factual and i only removed defamatory edits, if i ma still

going to be blocked and if this is the case i will be forced to take legal action against Wikipedia and these administrators. by Insert your reason to be unblocked here

Decline reason:

Wikipedia has a firm and wholly non-negotiable approach to legal threats. You will not be unblocked unless you publish, on this page, a clear and unequivocal retraction of your legal threat included in your unblock request, together with an unambiguous guarantee not to repeat this threat in the future. This is independent of any finding in relation to your alleged sockpuppetry, which will only be considered after withdrawal of your legal threat. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:15, 23 June 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am a genuine contributor, Unfortunately whenever i try to make positive edits on two particular pages, especially 1. Dayanidhi Maran and 2. Kalanithi Maran, I feel that i am being hounded by a couple of administrator who are only watching these pages and ensuring that no positive contributions are made to these pages. In fact these administrators are ensuring that even when all my contributions are with proper references, they just remove it and replace with offensive and defamation causing edits which are not at all substantiated by any legal references except for those which are published in the local tabloids. I am a believer in free speech and expression but without hurting any one personally and causing any defamation. I am also a believer that wikipedia should not be used as tool to defame popular persons such as Mr Dayanidhi Maran and Mr. Kalanithi Maran. The administrators seem to have a hidden agenda and are ensuring that these two page only contain informations which are causing defamation and cooked up stories from tabloids. My contributions are genuine and with an intention to give the correct, positive and useful information which are available in the public domain to the users of wikipedia.Parpann (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I repeat; you will not be unblocked until you withdraw your legal threat. This is not negotiable and not avoidable. If you persist in ignoring this you will lose the ability to edit this page.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:40, 23 June 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.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You're not auto-blocked, you're blocked directly. And if you don't stop blaming others for your own policy violations no one will be willing to unblock you. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18581 was submitted on Jun 23, 2017 18:25:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:25, 23 June 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).

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

Request reason:

without prejudice to my claims, I do not wish to proceed leagalyYour reason here Parpann (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

OK, that's lifted the legal threat, so now you need to make an unblock request that addresses the reason for your block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 24 June 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.

I'll add that I've examined the material that you were adding to those articles, and it was little more than obsequious praise and entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedia - it is not vandalism to remove puffery like "belongs to an illustrious family of Tamil Nadu whose contributions to the development of the State has been numerous and manifolds" and the rest of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 24 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I have made contributions which are available on the official government of India web sites, and removed false information from the page which in my opinion will cause defamation to this individual. Moreover i found that there were information which were false, out date and the ones which were reported in tabloids. I am sure no administrator will allow such contributions. Your reason here Parpann (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you are continuing to insist you have done nothing wrong, and can not see that your additions of masses of sycophantic praise is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, this is just wasting volunteer time. I have, therefore, revoked your ability to edit this talk page. See WP:UTRS if you wish to make a further appeal, but I can guarantee it will fail if you do not address your utterly inappropriate writing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 24 June 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.

I should also point out that pasting in masses of text taken from other sources is copyright violation, and I am now cleaning it up. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]