Universalrahu

Universalrahu, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Universalrahu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to Veerappan

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Tito Dutta (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

the word "sandalwood smuggler" is so vague and not officially confirmed Citation needed. He was alleged to be sandalwood smuggler but not a single case have been proved that he is guilty for smuggling sandalwood.Is there any reference for proving that he have been convicted for sandalwood smuggling in any court of law? is the word complying with Neutral Point of View policy --Universalrahu (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Dead people do not necessarily need to have endured a trial and conviction be considered a criminal. Firstly, see how Encyclopedia Britannica describes Veerappan. Then see how Al Capone is described as a bootlegger, gangster, racketeer, even though he was only convicted of tax evasion. If history considers a subject a certain way, for our purposes the content is suitable for inclusion. Alternatively, if there is some doubt, describing him as a "suspected sandalwood and ivory smuggler" might be more appropriate than removing the information. After all, he's only in Wikipedia because of his notoriety as a criminal bandit. Note that far greater care for living people as we must exercise great caution to prevent potentially defamatory content from being introduced.But for dead people, the rules are a little looser. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"Dead people do not necessarily need to have endured a trial and conviction be considered a criminal"? Any person dead or alive must be sentenced in any case considered to be convicted. Most of the common law countries including India presume a person to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty of any offense proved in any court of law.History is not what people generally think..Subhas Chandra Bose was remarked as "terrorist" in those days so can we give same expression as head-note to his page? We cannot completely ignore Veerapan is not a bandit or smuggler but the simple expression "sandalwood smuggler" gives an confusing thought like he was convicted and sentenced for that.So "alleged" or "suspected" sandalwood smuggler can give Neutral Point of View. Law does not allow any person dead or alive to be defamed with irrelevant comment.Living people can resist or revert defamatory comments as they are alive, dead persons must be dealt with great care since they cannot dig there own grave and come out to say there point.--Universalrahu (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kabali (film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Universalrahu, it was specifically this edit where you removed a clarification request without fixing the problem that was raised. This is not constructive. We write articles for a global readership, and if a user doesn't understand what is being communicated and is asking for clarification, you should endeavor to clarify it. Please only revert edits when there is a legitimate reason to do so (vandalism, for instance) and provide a clear edit summary. And if an change you make is reverted, per WP:BRD you should open a discussion on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user who made the reversion to seek consensus. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kabali (film), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Diff: [1] You should read the template. This has nothing to do with sourcing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Last warning

Last warning about this. If you remove the maintenance template again without resolving the clarification issue, I'm going to interrupt your editing privileges. The content doesn't make sense in English. It lacks sufficient context for English-speakers to understand what you are saying. Either fix the problem or leave the template alone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This content was problematic as well and I had to flag that for cleanup too. Either fix it, or remove the section, but don't remove the cleanup template until you do one or the other, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I've had to revert this because your editorial that the Tamil Nadu Toilers Party was built by "brave dominant and numerically strong" people does not constitute a neutral point of view. We are not allowed to editorialize or add our personal opinions to articles. "Brave" is an opinion. "Dominant" is an opinion. I don't know what "numerically strong" means--is that numerology or do you mean that there was a significant population? Either way, it's unsourced and confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: this, you are really making things difficult. If someone (i.e. me) is having difficulty understanding your English, restoring the problematic language isn't the correct choice. Explaining the issue here would have been helpful. I have repaired the odd phrasing with the word "populous" which means "full of residents or inhabitants, as a region; heavily populated." and "forming or comprising a large number or quantity". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and other issues

I've had to revert this because "massive blockbuster" fails our Neutral Point of View policy. Wikipedia is not a blog. We don't editorialize, advertise, or sensationalize. We present content in a fair and impartial tone. "Became a commercial success" would be closer, but you'd have to attribute that summary to a specific voice. There were other issues: "Largest opening" is vague. Surely an American film had the "largest opening". Do you mean "largest opening day in India"? Where's the source for that? Do you mean "largest opening in Chennai"? Where's the source for that? I didn't see anything in any of the sources that supported those claims. I see "a good opening". I see "the opening has been Grand" (which is vague and subjective), but nothing describing it as the "largest opening" of any specific kind. Also, I don't see anything supporting the 30 crore value you submitted. Lastly, thenewsrecorder.com is a blog, and we do not use blogs for references, since anyone can start a blog and print whatever he wants. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

largest opening is attributed as a big opening when compared to his previous movies.Need more guidance whether there must be usage of exact word mentioned in source or mention that word in a tone which is synonymous to it.--Universalrahu (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Veerappan has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Veerappan was changed by Universalrahu (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.860168 on 2016-11-12T23:34:05+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Re Raddiar, the contributor came to IRC and I advised him/her to undo the edits and get consensus

At WP:IRC #wikipedia-en-help, I had advised a contributor to undo the edits, sign up, and make a new query to gain consensus on article talk. Please understand that fact while interacting with this edit further. This process has even started. Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Want to help shape the future of the Wikipedia editing experience?

Hi Universalrahu,

The Design Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation is currently seeking relatively newcomer Wikipedians for user studies about their experience with current editing tools and to test out some prototype editing tools. If you’re interested in helping to shape the future of editing on Wikipedia, we would love to have you participate! The study session will take approximately 30 minutes, maximum of 45 minutes.

The study will take place in the next couple weeks, and will require participants to have access to a webcam and microphone (or a laptop with built in cam & mic), with a quiet place to go for a research session. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org and include the following information:

• Username
• Email where we can reach you
• Your city or time zone
• Best time to talk to you

Please let me know if you have any questions! Look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Daisy Chen

User Experience Researcher Dchen (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for not adhering to a neutral point of view despite multiple warnings. 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 ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 13:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

—SpacemanSpiff 13:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Hope this is an revert and block for editing Thol. Thirumavalavan for a neutral point of view issue. Can you explain more about the revert and violation of NPOV in the recent edit. Here are few points from my side. First there is no Reason for the revert in Thol. Thirumavalavan page. Does Administrators have special allowance for Unexplained Revert? Does the revert have gone through this principle WP:REVEXP of WP:RV. These actions summarizes that there is no warning made in this issue prior blocking and a clear reason not mentioned for blocking. If this is made there could have been a chance to state my view on the particular issue. If this block is for recent edit to Thol. Thirumavalavan can you expalin how you are WP:UNINVOLVED in the issue. If this block is for continuous NPOV issues I need to clarify that previous NPOV warnings are made when I entered as a new user and there is no recent serious misbehaviour of community standards or warnings given on such issues. Thank You--Universalrahu (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

THis is long term behavior. You've been at this many times. The NPOV violations border on vandalism as you are changing sourced text to your POV. —SpacemanSpiff 20:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain in what way the edit was violating a neutral point of view guideline? In what way adding the word "some" to the expressions violate Neutrality? Is there anything which attribute all Vanniyars or all Dalits belong to PMK or VCK in such sourced texts? I think "some" Vanniyars or "some" Dalits were more appropriate to avoid confusion as they belong to some social group, marking the plain name of a social group for the fight between two political parties is more dangerous.--Universalrahu (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb do you have anything to say about this issue. As you were the first to warn me on NPOV issue. The first NPOV warning was made on the same day when I joined Wikipedia inspite of "biting new user". Do my recent edit to Thol. Thirumavalavan violates Neutrality or it adds more precision to the issue?--Universalrahu (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You joined Wikipedia 3 November 2016 and I don't see any NPOV warnings from that day. In fact, it doesn't look like you edited until two days later, just so we have our facts straight. And since you're complaining about being "bitten", you described something as a "massive blockbuster" and I think I did an admirable job of patiently and clearly explaining why it is problematic to include that phrasing, even when I consider it absurd that anyone would use such gushing language in an encyclopedia. I think Spiff is the one to answer your questions about the neutrality issue, since I don't know what specifically the block was for. If it was for this, I think your choice to add "some" over and over again is bizarre. Generally speaking, "Then he ate cake" doesn't have to be changed to "then he ate some cake" or "then he ate half a slice of cake" or "then he ate 60 grams of cake" as if the reader would otherwise be confused that the subject ate all the cake in the world. Yes, sometimes we try to present scope: "A few passengers were injured in the bus crash." Or "Several passengers were injured in the bus crash." Or "Scores of passengers were injured in the bus crash." But in the Thirumavalavan thing, the phrasing "During 1999 general elections, there was intense violence in the region with casualties in both sides. Thirumavalavan accused Pattali Makkal Katchi, and its founder Ramadoss of instigating violence among Vanniyars that result in the attack of Dalits." Adding "some" just bizarrely changes the tone of the language. If we're talking about intense violence in the region and a strong accusation by Thirumavalavan that Ramadoss stirred up one group to attack another, the use of "some" just comes across as an effort to minimize involvement and impact. "Oh, well there weren't that many Vanniyars that got incited to violence, and only some Dalits were harmed or killed. I don't know how else to describe that other than as POV editing. Also, I don't know anything about the subject, I'm going solely on the use of language. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition to what Cyphoidbomb says above, there's this set of edits where you are blatantly changing content to your POV, using misleading summaries. If you can quote policy like you're doing here then obviously you know what's wrong. —SpacemanSpiff 03:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, those changes would be problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And then, there's this. Obviously, you are here to forward some sort of agenda and if this continues after your unblock you will be topic banned from the area and/or your editing privileges withdrawn. —SpacemanSpiff 03:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your reply Cyphoidbomb. What's the message I have tried to convey is you have made some valuable suggestion on my first NPOV issue but a warning at first instance I thought it like "biting". If that was not your intention that's good. Coming next to the "cake" issue anyone can make it sense to unfairly comparing a cake and violence in same leverage and intensity. The sole intention of making such edits is to make more precision to the point. And I am much amazed that how can a party clash between two party can solely be attributed as a clash between two social groups as it is in those expressions. Those parties are not sole representatives of their social group and there are plenty of parties representing them. And people belonging to neutrals who have no affiliation to any party. How anyone can use such plain words to denote the incident? attributing the social group instead of specifics. I don't know how Pattali Makkal Katchi and VCK are attributed as sole representatives of the community? Anyone can misunderstand reading "clash between Vanniyars and Dalits" as a wholesome clash between them? I don't know how to make a clear mention rather than adding "some" to exclude such wholesome misunderstanding? If such intention have been pointed as POV is there any other alternative to reduce such misunderstanding? Thanks.--Universalrahu (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your reply Spaceman. Those edits were made because everywhere there was a expression like "there are frequent clashes between Dalits and Vanniyars" and please make notice of claims made in the above reply to Cyphoidbomb which claims how these two party clash can be attributed as clash between wholesome group in general. My concern was always to minimize that misunderstanding and not really to make some POV. Some edits shown as POV had no reverts made by some other conflicting editors and still I believe in Talk and discuss on Talk page if there was a mistake. And your claim as "you are here to forward some sort of agenda" is really hurting as there is no intention of such things and anyone can easily understand those words as WP:ACCUSE. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

All this quoting of policy and guidelines just shows that you know things here, in which case any disruptive activity is inexcusable. Going forward, if you continue this then you will find yourself topic banned or blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 10:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi!SpacemanSpiff I am surprised why there is no discussion on queries that are put forward. I think I don't make a unblock request. As there is a block to make edits on User Talk page I am raising my query here. There is only a sanction tone which closely borders WP:THREATEN. My queries are based on Talk and discuss about edits and improvements. But why there is a tone of Accusation like "you know everything". You made a revert to Thol. Thirumavalavan page and the query is about the revert in that page. The explanation is about NPOV violation in that revert and I can be guided more in particular if you can provide some clarification on what subcategory of NPOV guidelines was that edit violated or on what way it was judged as NPOV violation. It seems like there is no willing of discussion on the topic.--Universalrahu (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• What you are doing is vandalism, although it violates NPOV also. You are changing sourced content to suit your POV. As I've said if you do this sort of nonsense again your editing privileges will be revoked. Wikipedia is not your personal WP:SOAPBOX, plain and simple. That some of your other POV pushing hasn't been reverted isn't relevant. I'm done discussing this with you as you clearly know our policies but pretend to act like you're being victimized. —SpacemanSpiff 14:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this user Spaceman is Breaching basic policies for an Administrator by using uncivil words and repeated attacks and threatens. And the user tends to be Failure to reply properly especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought. The user is replying from an Administrator tone forgetting that he is also an editor-contributor. Claiming for an explanation for the revert made by him the user is repeatedly not answering about that particular topic and repeating the sanction tone which is irrelevant to the query raised. The user is repeatedly using imagination words like "pretending to act" and other serious imaginary expressions.

The explanation is quite simple: you cannot remove sourced content with a misleading explanation. Please take a while to read WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, which will help answer your questions. Also, Spiff is not being "uncivil"; he is describing your actions relatives to Wikipedia policy. So reading WP:NPA is also a good idea. Repeated removal of content can lead to a block, as you have already discovered. Vanamonde (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Vanamonde please read the replies of user Spaceman he is been replying from an Administrator tone from the beginning and the query is all about a revert made by him as a editor. Whenever the user replies he is not concerned about the query raised and replying with expressions like "you are here to forward some sort of agenda " and "pretend to act like you're being victimized" which is exactly like same mentioned in WP:ACCUSE. And in all replies there are expressions like "you will be topic banned from the area" and "editing privileges will be revoked" these sorts of expressions are used by the user for reply to a discussion which is not relevant to the topic and this is a clear WP:THREATEN. I clearly mentioned that this is not a Unblock request and this is only clarification for the unexplained revert made by the user Spaceman on Thol. Thirumavalavan page. Next thing is the user is highly WP:INVOLVED in this conflict from the beginning and his recent edits will also reveal that he is an WP:INVOLVED Admin in the issue and have some conflict of interest. Hope WP:INVOLVED administrator are not allowed to take action in disputed cases in which they are been involved. I have explained my point of view to my edit and explanation for it but the user have not replied for those and simply replying that "your making POV edits". This shows that the user is not ready for a discussion especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought. All these things made me the user is not accountable. I request some third party Administrator to invlove in this issue. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've told you, it was a revert of vandalism and clearly not involved. Plain and simple. My interactions wiht you are only in an admin capacity. It is increasingly clear that you are not here to contribute to building an encylcopaedia.—SpacemanSpiff 15:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I am an administrator, which is why I dropped by. You would do well to read and follow the advice you have been given, particularly with respect to WP:NPOV. Everything you add must be supported by reliable sources. This is not optional. You would do well to stop complaining about SpacemanSpiff's intervention, and instead figuring out how to edit in a policy-bound manner. Vanamonde (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi!Spaceman My very first query from beginning is why where you replying in an administrator capacity for an explanation claimed for an revert edit made by you to a page as an editor. Hope editors and Administrators are all same in Wikipedia foundation. Please stop these imaginary accusation like "It is increasingly clear that you are not here to contribute to building an encyclopaedia". I have been here for building Wikipedia as you and me and all here are volunteers for building encyclopedia.Vanamonde thanks for your information sure will work more for building Wikipedia in future. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:PAID

Hi there, just an FYI that if you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. See WP:PAID for more information. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi! No. This is an individual user. Thanks for your concern.--Universalrahu (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The individual-ness of the user is not relevant. If an editor is being paid to edit, even if they are an individual (which they normally are), that would need to be disclosed, along with who is paying them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I am not paid by any sorts. I am an independent user. I'm not getting clear why this WP:PAID jargon have been tagged on my Talk page.Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2012 Dharmapuri violence, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. THis is your only warning, the next time you remove sourced content and reliable sources because it doesn't suit your POV, you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 09:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The oneindia.com is mostly referred as unreliable source at various instances in Wikipedia like WP:ICTF. Moreover the citation is in another language and any English reader cant identify the source to be verifiable as the page 2012 Dharmapuri violence is in Wikipedia English and see WP:NONENG which states English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. And please hone your tone before making any serious comments about other users and making warning at first instance. Editing to Wikipedia is not POV as you mentioned contentious material which are poorly sourced must be removed immediately.--Universalrahu (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the vandalism warning is a final warning, you've been at this for far too long now. Did you even bother reading the source and/or looking at other sources? When I reverted your vandalism, I checked and clearly the same thing is available in multiple ENglish sources too. So, please cease this, you've been vandalizing Wikipedia to advance a point of view and are now wikilawyering since you've gotten caught and been blocked for it. —SpacemanSpiff 15:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This user seems to be unwilling for any discussion or Talk on any topic and the user is really threatening and accusing in a partial tone. The user is not using the talk page where the issue is actually happening to discuss on the topic and making serious warnings for edits on user talk page. The user seems to be WP:INVOLVED in this issue. Anyone can at first instance note that oneindia.com is not a reliable source and warning for an good faith edit is not seeming to be impartial for an Administrator. The English sources have only expressions like "inflammatory speech" and there is no phrasing of words as described in that editorial with poor citation. I seek third opinion in this issue.--Universalrahu (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Pro tip: When someone who has fewer than 250 edits to their name starts throwing around Wikipedia policy as though they have great familiarity with it, it's a sure way to get people wondering whether or not you have edited here before, and whether or not you are violating a pre-existing block. I don't see how SpacemanSpiff would be considered involved. It's his job as an administrator to inform you when changes you make are problematic. Moving on, I don't see how the Indian cinema task force has jurisdiction over determining reliable sources for non-film-related issues, but, assuming that Oneindia is insufficient (and it probably is), what other efforts did you attempt to verify the information? Did you check to see if you could determine the source of the content Oneindia might have been reprinting? Did you do a basic Google search? I don't know anything about Vanniyars or Indian castes, but it was pretty clear from the first set of Google results on "Kaduvetti Guru" that the guy has said a lot of inflammatory stuff and has been arrested several times as a result.[2] I found several references. If I spoke Tamil, I might be able to find more. Deleting the content? I don't get that. But when compared to previous edits, where you attempt to soften some things and remove others, I can absolutely see why Spiff considers this POV editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this time user Cyphoidbomb have been in more convincing tone forgetting the misjudgement made by user Spaceman. I don't see whether there is any measure to check the user's familiarity with Wikipedia Policies & Guidelines as you were trying to convey as only users with more than 250 edits have much knowledge about policies and guidelines. As one starts editing they get to see lots of guidelines and policies on the way and he/she learns from that and still as you mentioned "no one is perfect and everyone makes mistake". Trying to convey some hidden message as if this user have been sometimes blocked before and here now with a new user id is completely an imaginary accusation. Still I don't know the reason for introducing WP:PAID jargon on my Talk page. Are you trying to make an implied impression as if this user is a paid user? Hope I have replied to that. Anyone who reads my comment to other users or Talk page could infer that I have never used uncivil words. But Cyphoidbomb user always speaks in a imaginary words that may give some implied meaning to the readers. I don't think this is progressive for an Administrator. I wonder how a new user can speak politely and calm and an experienced Administrator can throw words as he thinks. Coming to the issue, please clearly see my words on the comment I have only mentioned that there are only "instances" where oneindia.com is marked as unreliable source and never said it as a jurisdiction. I think this time I have to say some thing to an experienced user like Cyphoidbomb that Wikipedia is not a fact checking space there's no need to go and search all those rubbish things on google that's not the work of an editor or reader. If the editorial is unverifiable or contentious it should be removed immediately. The editorial in 2012 Dharmapuri violence, have exactly those expressions "Kaduvetti Guru asked the members of community to kill men from other community" which is an very serious contentious material about a living person and incident. I searched for all sources to find these exact expression in English sources I cant find it so removed it. And as you mentioned oneindia.com is an unreliable source so removing the editorial with that citation, how can be a Vandalism? as mentioned by Spaceman and a severe warning for that I see it as a serious misjudgement of an Administrator breaching Basic policies for an Administrator. And one thing to clearly mention is the user Spaceman is using an double edged knife as Administrator and editor. He makes edits to some page and immediately makes warning on my talk page. He acts in both capacity as editor and administrator. The user is indirectly trying to control his edits like " I have been administrator and warned you so if you change my edit I may block you". Anyone who sees the users edit can easily identify the user as a serious WP:INVOLVED administrator with heavy conflict of interest. I don't have any particular interest on any topic but my concern was to be treated fairly. I see Involved admin is not acting impartially. And a last note I am aware of Wikipedia and its structure. I am not here to propagate some agenda or anything else. I have created some pages with not a single issue of NPOV or issues and still I know this is not relevant to the issue, and still if this community considers me unwilling to be here, well i am glad to quit. But before that I seek some multiple third party administrators to give opinion in the issue. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Pure nonsense

This comment you left on SpacemanSpiff's talk page is pure rubbish and I have responded accordingly. In case you don't get the ping or don't bother to check it, please stop wasting other editors' time with nonsense. Seriously, you're bringing up crap from 2009 when SpacemanSpiff was new? I assume that's what you're referring to since he hadn't edited that article since 2012. Nobody expects perfection from new editors, only a willingness to learn and to change when problems are pointed out. Similarly, nobody expects you to be perfect, only to be willing to learn and to change when problems are pointed out. And in case you want to get super anal about this, in the 27 July 2009 version of MOS:LEAD (which coincides with SpacemanSpiff's creation of the article), the instructions to avoid "acclaimed" had not yet been introduced, and wasn't added until 3 years later. So for all you know, the community didn't yet have a problem with that phrasing. Total waste of time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I wonder how Cyphoidbomb is making all sorts to help or save SpacemanSpiff and the same Cyphoidbomb you made me serious warning to a such a budding editor at a very first instance when I entered this community at beginning. Thanks for your concern.--Universalrahu (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand most of what you said, but you seem to under the mistaken impression that new editors are immune from correction. Inaccurate. Worry about your own editing, not what others do or say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Universalrahu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

March 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Santhanam (actor), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diffs: [3] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

List of new faces introduced by Bharathiraja

Hi - I'm concerned about this new list that you've created. As a list composed mostly (presumably) of BLPs, I'd expect to see a reliable source for each and every individual on the list, confirming that they were introduced to cinema by Bharathiraja. I can't see any sourcing confirming that any of them were, and the first couple of articles I clicked on did not mention Bharathiraja anywhere in them. I'm going to draftify this article, to give you time to work on the sourcing - please also consider the article title before republishing, I'm not sure 'new faces' is formal enough for an encyclopedic list. Something like 'List of notable actors introduced to cinema by Bharathiraja' might be more appropriate. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 12:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit I have tried my best to cite as many as sources reliable to each individual in the list. I think changing the name of article lies with admin so I request you to keep an apt name which suits the article. Even this could suits the article title " List of film personalities introduced by Bharathiraja". I have sent the page for review. Thanks.--Universalrahu (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

List of new faces introduced by Bharathiraja moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of new faces introduced by Bharathiraja, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit Thanks for you valuable time to spend on my new article. Will see into new sources and soon will send for review. Thanks for your concern.----Universalrahu (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of new faces introduced by Bharathiraja (April 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of new faces introduced by Bharathiraja and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of new faces introduced by Bharathiraja, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not verifying what the source says ( READ THE SOURCES MENTIONED IN ARTICLES )

You are not verifying what the source says. Where ever I edit , I edit based on books and references from reputed universities. Please do not glorify castes and communities. Also read the sources carefully. Thanks

You need to check the amount of discussion I have made in talk pages. I kindly request you to go through talk pages, Also when ever I make a edit it based on university academic books and resources. so Please I have posted my comments on talk pages. request you to do the same. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Regarding the Editing of B.SArojaDevi's page from Gounder to Gowda

In Karnataka, where she was born there is no caste called Gounder. Its a caste called GOwda which she belongs to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetankcp (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of new faces introduced by Bharathiraja

Hello, Universalrahu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of new faces introduced by Bharathiraja".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Important information

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC).

Community sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--RegentsPark (comment) 12:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Paris Jayaraj moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Paris Jayaraj, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Extreme casteist tendency

U r deleting everything created by some casteist director by simply saying POV and unreliable citation for everything. Many other people also watching the pages. I will report to adminstrator.2409:4072:6C9F:42AA:2EE5:7BCE:F1B:2CB1 (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of Wikipedia policies. You first see Wikipedia:MOSFILMS. A news completely not connected with film has been included and that too from unreliable sources. See Reliable sources guidelines on Indian cinema Wikipedia:INCINE. If you are going to add news from unreliable sources not connected with the film. You will be reported to Administrators.--Universalrahu (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

U are only saying what you hate as unreliable. BBC, Indian express and times of india Tamil is not unreliable. 2409:4072:6C9F:42AA:3C60:AA0C:E631:AE6 (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term disruptive editing, inability to follow policies, refusal to edit collaboratively.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 06:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Takku Mukku Tikku Thalam Fim Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Takku Mukku Tikku Thalam Fim Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)