User talk:M R Madhavan
M R Madhavan, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi M R Madhavan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC) |
Komalezhathu Chekavar
Hi, do you know Komalezhathu Chekavar (talk · contribs) ? - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, he is a family member. He was adding facts and information available from the mainstream newspaper clippings and history books and trying to enhance the article. But your constant interruption and deletion of his work frustrated him. He requested me to do the updating of the article. I have cited solid examples from The Hindu(Prominent mainstream newspaper of India) and other available authentic sources on the internet. Hope you are going to respect the efforts and not unnecessarily delete without proper reference or checks.
- Ah, well there might be a problem. See WP:MEAT and WP:COI. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- The citations given here and the information uploaded is the facts from published mainstream newspapers and books in India. I am not understanding whether Wikipedia is against publishing history and facts with proper citation. If you have any problem or issues, you need to clearly state what they are and what is the solution you are seeking from me. I do not want to waste my time and efforts on arguing with you nor is it necessary for me to pander to your ego by deleting historical facts that I have given here with proper citation.
You have not mentioned a single word about the Hindu newspaper article links that I have cited here, which leads me to doubt your intention of helping the contributors publish genuine facts through Wikipedia. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is a free encyclopedia, giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject, written collaboratively by the people who use it. As an editor, you seem to take an interest in belittling contributors efforts and deleting facts based on personal prejudices and hearsay, without any proper verification or checks. I am not in collaboration with anyone here to publish lie or fiction. By implying that this is the case you are being extremely discouraging and insulting as an editor of Wikipedia.
In order to avoid further unnecessary communication with you, kindly answer the following queries. 1) Which citations have you got a problem with? 2) Which are the facts that you disagree with in the article, portraying it as far-fetched or false, about Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker? 3) If I provide scanned copies of mainstream newspaper articles and books published by Manorama, The New Indian Express Group and Deshabhimani, would that be sufficient to put your mind at rest and accept it as genuine facts and information that can be published in Wikipedia? M R Madhavan (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- You are trying to do the right thing but you are going about it in the wrong way. I have asked for help at the India project noticeboard and am unlikely to be around for a couple of days. I advise you to read WP:NPA also. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Please unblock Username: M R Madhavan who is blocked for the reason: Sock puppet of Komalezhathu Chekavar
Admin: Bbb23,
Komalezhathu Chekavar, was a User Name created by an elderly family member.
When contributions were made to the page Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker, the Chekavar title/surname was questioned by the Wikipedia Editor Sitush. Several citations were provided which did not seem to satisfy Sitush. The constant edit arguments and explanations that was required to prove the validity of the article, was not something User Name: Komalezhathu Chekavar could afford, in terms of the time and effort. User Name: Komalezhathu Chekavar, was discouraged and decided not to contribute anymore.
As I was interested in the same articles and have read and done a lot of referencing and research on the subjects,and was interested in contributing valid information to Wikipedia, I decided to take over from User Name: Komalezhathu Chekavar. Thus from the same I.P.Address, two accounts were created.
As both of us are relatively new contributors of Wikipedia, we were not aware of the Sock puppet or Meat puppet policies. If I was aware of such policies, multiple accounts from the same I.P.Address would not have been created. There will be no more muliple accounts created.
I have no interest in vandalizing or disrupting or engaging in edit wars with any editors. My only intention here is to provide valid sourced information from mainstream newspapers and books and give valid citations on the topics, I am contributing to. Please see my edit history and talk pages. In one of the spindles I have given a list of citations, I have added to satisfy Sitush's doubts. I am also happy to scan and upload newspaper articles from mainstream newspapers to validate the information being contributed, for which no internet links can be found.
I have no intention to use any abusive language nor have I used it to on any editors here.
User Name: Komalezhathu Chekavar will not be using his account again in future. He is not going to make any further contributions to Wikipedia.
I have genuine interest in contributing to articles like Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker, on which I have knowledge/information, in Wikipedia. Kindly unblock me, at the earliest.
M R Madhavan (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Even assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is true, both you and your relative appear to be only interested in the one article, not in improving the project. In addition, the two of you have violated copyright necessitating deleting your edits. Both of you have also attacked other editors when they tried to fix some of the more egregious errors you made editing, accusing them of bad faith. My assumption is that the person you are writing about is one of your descendants that you have an interest in promoting. In its present state, the article is poorly crafted and unencyclopedic (I have no comment on the reliability of the sources). I am unwilling to unblock you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Your explanation on why you are unwilling to unblock me comes across as harsh and unfair. I am trying to improve articles on which I have knowledge and information on. I am not just interested in one article, but would like to concentrate on improving one article before moving on to another topic. Multiple editing and contributing on different articles is confusing, especially when citations are involved.
Please check the reference, [1] As mentioned in the article, "A slice from the history of Kerala. The role of Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker, in creating modern Kerala could not be denied."
I have an interest in giving authentic information to the public regarding a personality, who was responsible for the renaissance movement which happened in Kerala,India and one who contributed greatly to eradicating the atrocities done on the basis of casteism and discrimination based on caste, existing in Kerala,India, during his time.
By blocking me, you are not giving me an opportunity to publish information on Wikipedia regarding a relevant historical figure in the Kerala history. There is a lot of information on the years he was active as a social revolutionary, which needs to be yet published on Wikipedia. I was working on it, when you blocked me permanently.
Could you please tell me where I have violated copyrights, which necessitated deletion of my edits? I have not used words copied from any books or magazines, which are a original source. I added a picture that I had taken of Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker's portrait which I found on a banner that was displayed on a meeting commemorating his life, which had no copyrights on it, the original portait done was by some unknown artist who lived during the 1850's. When this picture was removed by an editor, I did not even pursue it with him/her.
The only editor that I was in contact with was Sitush. Sitush had mentioned that some of the information given is far-fetched or dodgy. As you mentioned, I do not understand where I have made egregious errors. I have also stated that I am happy to scan and upload mainstream newspaper article published for verification on the authenticity of information that I have provided.
You are stating that in its present state, the article is poorly crafted and unencyclopedic. It would be helpful to understand which statements in the article are poorly crafted and unencyclopedic.
I have been active as a contributor on Wikipedia just only for the past 48 hours and you are taking an extremely harsh step of blocking me, permanently without any leeway, which leaves me wondering what is the reason for this harsh step.
Can you please give a solution on how this can be resolved? M R Madhavan (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)