Hello Radhakrishnansk, and welcome to Wikipedia! We're really glad you've chosen to sign up for an account; it offers numerous benefits in case you weren't already aware of them.

Thankyou for your contributions if you've been editing before you got this message. If you haven't, don't worry: there are numerous ways you can contribute to Wikipedia if you're not sure where to start yet. Either way, we hope you'll like the place and decide to stay. We all remember what it's like to be new, so don't let others scare you off.

Here's some useful links that will help you get started.

•   Wikipedia:How to edit a page - it's a lot easier than you might think.

•   Tutorial - a collection of pages explaining the most important things for contributing to Wikipedia.

•   Sandbox - the best place for trying things out. If previous edits you made to articles have been reverted because they were experimental or unconstructive, this is the place to make test edits.

•   Wikipedia:Where to ask a question - Wikipedia has numerous places for you to put your questions and comments forward.

•   Wikipedia:Five pillars - Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines are summarized here.

•   Wikipedia:Manual of Style - our style guide outlines our standards for ensuring that we present information in a consistent manner that promotes cohesion and professionalism.

With these references at hand, we hope you find it easier to contribute to Wikipedia. Here's a brief synopsis of some ways you can:

• We obviously wouldn't have an encyclopedia without articles. This page shows how you can help them grow.

• Removing vandalism and keeping the integrity of articles intact is a great way of contributing. More information on how to do so can be found here.

• Fixing typos, correcting poor grammar and repairing broken links are just some examples of useful, behind the scenes contributions. Even just making things look nice makes using Wikipedia more pleasant for everybody.

• If you like working with images, you might be interested in the Graphic Lab. Similarly, this page shows you how to work with images in Wikipedia articles.

• This page lists the many types of tasks you can do to maintain Wikipedia.

• There are numerous WikiProjects that aim to provide coordination and collaboration on particular subjects. From this list, you can join a project and contribute within an area that interests you.

Of course, there are many ways of contributing, but I hope that this message is helpful to you, and that you'll enjoy editing Wikipedia and continue to do so. You can respond to this message by clicking if you have a comment or need help - don't forget to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page and write your query there. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! WilliamH (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.[1]

friend Joysriramsarkar.manathetiger56 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Socialist Unity Centre of India. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not an admin I just noticed your report at WP:3RRN and wanted to make sure you were aware that 3RR works both ways as this is a content dispute. As described above, you should seek some kind of dispute resolution instead of continuing the edit war. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radhakrishnansk

I'm not an admin, but I do sometimes try and resolve disputes. I don't have time today but I'll try to keep an eye on the article over the next few days.

In the meantime, I see that you've warned the IP for WP:3RR, and that you've also been warned. Rather than constantly reverting each other (which may get one or both of you blocked) you should try discussing the matter on either the article's talk page or on the IP's talk page. I realise this may be difficult but it's a necessary first step before starting any form of dispute resolution.

You should also consider filing a sock puppet report on the IP, if you believe that they're a sock puppet of a blocked or banner user. If you're not sure how to do this then post a message on the relevant talk page and someone will help you file the report.

Hope this helps, and good luck!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't right now, I'm afraid - I'm about to go offline for the rest of the day and won't be back online in the next 24 hours. If you post a message on the SPI talk page I'm sure someone will be able to help you fill in the report.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Socialist Unity Centre of India. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

This is to let you know that an incident you may have been involved in is being discussed at the administrators' notice board (incidents).

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radhakrishnansk

Whether you're removing anything or not, you're still reverting the IP which constitutes edit-warring. I've warned both parties in the interests of fairness, and raised the matter at WP:ANI. I gather something similar has happened before, so some administrators at least may be aware of the context of the dispute.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will refrain from doing it any more--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor acknowledged being banned User:Kuntan. Radhakrishnansk may assume that edits from this IP range to this article or elsewhere, engaged in similar disruption, are from this banned user, and may revert them where doing so would not be disruptive. (I.e., for example, generally, don't remove such an edit to a Talk page where a registered editor has responded -- but if R has been the only respondent, the discussion may be removed). I have advised R that page semiprotection should be requested if there are significant numbers of these edits, and I may do this myself, I haven't looked at today's activity. The warning to R was proper, but so too were his reverts. It's not a content dispute, as such, and the only reason the relevant IPs aren't blocked on sight is lack of administrative attention. It's dynamic IP, so often admins won't bother playing Whack-a-Mole, but a careful rangeblock may be considered. R should know that some edits from this range may be from other editors, so reasonable caution should be exercised; however edits pushing a similar position to that advocated by Kuntan in the past, behaving uncivilly, etc., can be assumed to be from this banned editor, who has openly acknowledged being the banned editor, there is no need for sockpuppet investigation.

I have also advised R to refrain from any incivility toward this editor. It's not necessary, and it will provoke further ban violation. --Abd (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never give out the personal details of another editor unless either you have their express permission, or the information is already easily available elsewhere. Should you do so again you are liable to be blocked without further notice, but in this instance I have assumed good faith and decided you were unfamiliar with policy so have issued this warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Regarding your report. As stated on the SPI page, sockpuppetry cases must not be filed under quick checks.

Quick checks are NOT provided as a lazy option for those who don't wish to take the time to file a case properly.

The case will be delisted shortly. If you wish the sockpuppetry to be investigated, please file a proper case.

Mayalld (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for an SPI, waste of time. The IP editor has acknowledged being the banned User:Kuntan, in several places. --Abd (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to User talk:192.87.16.244. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahdakrishnansk, be careful. Yes, there was a problem with the sock puppet template on that page, though it was relatively harmless. Blanking the page, however, removed a warning to the IP, and page blanking almost always attracts the attention of recent changes patrollers, because it is usually vandalism. The warning there may be important if there is some pattern that later appears. The template was placed there by User:Ratringer, who was an SPA registered to create sock allegations. Kuntan? Reasonable guess. The account didn't do enough to attract attention. I removed the sock puppet claim, we don't allow, in my opinion, that kind of hit-and-run allegation. The user page was created by the same user, very odd. --Abd (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what attracted your attention to these IP pages, and to User:Sekhar Lukose Kuriakose. I have tagged the latter user page for speedy deletion, it was created by Ratringer. The user is at ITC Enschede. I have removed the Suciindia ssp tags, but they were probably accurate, except possibly for SLK. Please, why the interest? --Abd (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following copied from User talk:Abd, note by --Abd (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just tracing the edits made by Kuntan and his puppets. I kept on removing all that where ever it seemed that he was using abusive language or was dragging IPs of institutions into conflict. Sorry if it is inappropriate. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will change it all back to the previous state.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. STOP NOW!. --Abd (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...as you suggest. I was waiting for your reply--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the following was posted here --Abd (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop now! It will just make more mess. I'm dealing with what I found. --Abd (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits refers to current stuff. Old stuff, much more complicated question, better left to more experienced editors. I'm maybe even out of my league a little. But we'll see. --Abd (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the reply was: --Abd (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...I will then not search any further into the history of this User:Kuntan--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the question, you did not answer: what led you to User talk:192.87.16.244, the editor Ratringer, and the related pages? What connected these with Kuntan? --Abd (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the past edits made in the SUCI page...I checked one after another all the IPs since its beginning. I found another User:Kundan too who may be a puppet of User:Kuntan. You will see that there was attempts from this IP address to edit the page, probably a puppet of User:SUCIIndia and thereafter it was shortlisted as a puppet of SUCIIndia. Given the declaration in the IP user page that it belongs to ITC Netherlands, I decided to clean it up.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know this editor User:Ratringer. I just cleaned the page as it was declared clearly that it is an institutional page and not a puppet of User:SUCIIndia--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ratringer was quite possible Kuntan. What do you mean the IP address was "shortlisted as a puppet of Suciindia? What list? The notice on the user page was put there by Ratringer. In other words, probably Ratringer declared that it is an institutional page. However, it is an institutional page. The SSP tags were proper, but they should have been on the User page, not on the talk page.

There is something quite strange about the IP edits. They show long-term consistency, so, while this is an institutional IP, it may be stable for each user, which would mean that blocking it would only block Suciindia. Odd, don't you think? Who is Ratringer? It could be Suciindia. The IP is considered a puppet, but we also do know that an user might not be the same master.

For example, you see all this IP that is Kuntan. Look at the contributions history, many of the edits are probably not him. But those IP addresses can be listed on the user pages, it shows pattern. I'll get to it later. I'll look at Kundan. --Abd (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Radhakrishnansk. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GedUK  10:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I had a feeling that was the case. Thanks for letting me know - it will help me be more confident when I label him as a sock puppet next time.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed; I'll keep an eye out for it and report it to WP:SPI if I spot it misbehaving. Thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have comments to make about the allegation, please make them at the case page, rather than the talk page of the clerk dealing with the case. Mayalld (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radhakrishnansk, you can be blocked for making unsubstantiated allegations of sock puppetry; I have not reviewed the case involved, but until it is resolved, please confine your comments to what is necessary. That an editor seems to you like an obvious sock puppet of a banned or blocked editor is no basis for reversion, it is a basis for filing sock puppetry charges, and it's only relevant to edits, pending a decision on sock puppetry, if there is edit warring involving multiple socks.

I notice your removal of a redlink. Non-existence of articles is not a reason for a removal of a redlink, redlinks are encouraged because they encourage the creation of articles. Only if the subject redlinked is clearly not notable or, if created, they would be redirected to the article being edited, should they be removed. The redlink you removed, however, doesn't seem to be a quite proper article name, and it would have been appropriate to edit it to better form. Making moves to help an editor with whom you are in conflict are moves that can resolve disputes. Your goal should be consensus; other goals will eventually get you into trouble. --Abd (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Radhakrishnansk. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GedUK  13:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the sockpuppetry case you filed against me has been closed. I hope you will not vandalise my user page again. After looking at that RFCU page and also at your contributions I now believe that you are the one engaged in sockpuppetry here. I was sympathetic to your interests and I am not being vindictive. But I will ask you to expalin how come you have IDENTICAL interests with user:Bctcanji. You may ignore this, but then I might file a RFCU against you . C K Luckose (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]