Apropos the changes you made to the artilce [[1]]-You think Wiki is the space to dump your ideoloical baggage? Your ilk have been warned earlier about the policy of Wiki. Why don't you see sense? Put all those things in your party organs, not here! Kuntan 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't remove dispute tags without giving proper reason. You are spoiling the article. You simply can't enforce your party's decision about a Wikipedia article. Pity that you don't see sense and desist. You are from Kerala, I suppose? Kuntan 09:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create and recreate an article without content. If this person is noteworthy, write an article with content that explains why. Thanks, NawlinWiki 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "more details will be added later", wait to create the article until you have the details. There is no point having an article without content. NawlinWiki 17:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you can sign your comments by putting ~ 4 times and that you can look at the preview before saving. Clt13 11:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certain truths you can verify without visiting websites, say like the case of notorious sodomite leaders.Kuntan 17:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing manners are improper. Why do you revert changes without giving reason? You have been observed removing tags at your will and have been warned several times. Since your edits have left the articled mangled and poorer, you are harming your own cause. Kuntan 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend, Why don't you write new articles instead of mangling the existing ones, say on C.K. Lukose? Kuntan 12:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the guidline WP:AUTO, in case you represent SUCI

What do you want us to do with the Auto Biography? We know how to write about our leader and we dont think that anything that is presently there about Com. Shibdas Ghosh in the relevant page has anything un-wanted according to the Wiki guidelines.--Suciindia 14:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to read WP:AUTO.--Clt13 03:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi comrade, I am a communist and anarchist from South Africa. found the article about your party and your leader and thought theme very interesting. I would like to know a bit more about your party. Some points mentioned in the article currently and some I gleaned from going back in the history attracted me, especially those like your commune and attitude towards private property etc. I went through several of your leader's pamphlets and think highly of them. Has he enlarged on those topics elsewhere? From what I have read, I understand that your party sets great store by high moral values. I would like to know what processes and mecahanism in your party ensure moral standards. Has your party scuceeded in doing away with the private property within your organisational community? I am keenly interested to know. Please give me as much details as possible. If you can let me know your email address or postal address I would like to contact you. comradely yours, Nguvon

Dear Mr. Nguvon, You may kindly contact suci_cc@vsnl.net. Alternatively, you can check www.suci.in for details about our party and its activities.

Regards --Suciindia 08:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red salute comrade Dear com, i see ur message. good that ur working on it. but we want to give more details on our party here. what you think?. i am inviting other cmorads also to do edit. there is some anti party people working hard to destroy our party. so take care. east bangla party comrads will also write articles and we give link here to there and there to here. revoluionry greetins. khudiram

Dear Comrade, Please discuss with the CC office through suci_cc@vsnl.net. If instructed from CC office please feel free to edit the text.

Regards --Suciindia 08:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are bent on spoiling the contents of Socialist Unity Centre of India in accordance with your party line it looks like it is time it went through arbitration process. Kundan After Sundown 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

hi,

could you have a look at the All India Democratic Youth Organisation article? Its currently very short, and a merge is proposed. --Soman (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Soman, Sure, please do so. Eventually when we have time to add some more content, we will do so.--Suciindia (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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.

you'd better read [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.11 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi. thank you for your comment. however, i have to inform that collective editing accounts are not encouraged at wikipedia. there is also a problem of WP:COI. Although I appreciate the openess of your approach, it would probably be better to construct individual editing accounts. --Soman (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for delaying my response. References can be from non-english sources, although english sources are clearly preferred. If you use non-english or non-internet sources, please be ready to provide quotations from the original in case there is a dispute over the accuracy of the reference. --Soman (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you? poor boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.113 (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, son of the secretary. Your commie spirit is unflagging. I beat a retreat. 59.91.253.113 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Suciindia, thanks for getting in touch so quickly. Can you point me to where this incident has been reported? I've had a (quick) look on [3], [4] and [5], and I've searched using [6] - nothing's turned up, but Wikipedia is a big place :-)

Many thanks,  This flag once was red  21:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Suciindia, I've found it: [7]. Good to see this is being dealt with. I've removed the 3RR warning from this page.

Best wishes,  This flag once was red  22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. Your block is the subject of discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents, where the suggestion was made to point out several of our key policies, including the policy on the use of multiple accounts, the policy on "gaming the system", and the requirements for Reliable Sources. There seems to be support for an unblock of your account if you would review and acknowledge your intent to abide by these policies in your further edits to the encyclopedia. Even if blocked, you are able to edit this talk page, and I would invite you to do so should you have any questions on these policies, the discussion at WP:ANI, or your status in general. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, We are surprised to see that our account is blocked for all the above stated reasons! From the first set of discussions related to SUCI page you could see that many have had objections relating to the way that the page protrayed SUCI. After it came to the notice of the party it was decided that some edits be done. Originally, when we did not know the regulations on Wiki we did edits as we found necessary. But eventually through the discussions that we had with User: Soman we came to know of the wiki regulations and had only statements aptly cited. It was the time that the puppet of User: Kuntan returned and stated messing with the account. You may see that every fix that we have made after the return of the puppet Kuntan was only in line with the Wiki norms. We where only fixing the edits made by the anonymous user who had a personal vengance on us. We also clearly explained why we use the term 'WE' and not 'I'. We could have easily resorted to the creation of a personal account and be active in the Wiki page on SUCI. We did not do it as we dont want to cheat the community. From the discussion we also find something about ===Extra Ordinary Plenum===. This is a fake message. We did not post anything of this sort in the wiki page. This is not from any of us. Please do verify the IP number. It is not an IP number that SUCIIndia has used ever. From all our discussions in Wiki you may have seen that we dont resort to abusive language as that is not our character. And yet it is unfortunate to see that the editor resorted to ban the account on abusive usage. If you go through the discussions, you will know that it is the puppet of User: Kuntan who resorted to the use of abusive language and personal abuses.

The only accounts that we access are those related to our party and our only intention is to agree to wiki standards and yet not be misrepresented. You may also see that most of the citiations in the wikipage are now from non SUCI sources, except for that poltiical stand of ours as the only communist party of India. As User: Soman points out, this is something that seperates us from other 'communist' parties. You could also see from the discussions that there are not much material about us published in the Internet or JSTOR making it only possible to resort to new paper articles.

User: Sekharlk is a personal account and shares the ip of User: SUCIIndia and User: SUCIUnity.

So also, we have had clearly mentioned in an earlier discussion on the Edit War on our page which was started by the anoymous user (puppet of User: Kuntan), the use of 'WE' is only to clearly indicate to other Editors and Readers who did the edits. If we are providing secondary sources as citations and making factual statements based on it why should we have to be banned? Why is the puppet of User: Kuntan not banned? Given the fact that we have clearely stated our intention to abid by Wiki rules, except in the usage of 'WE' and not 'I', we request the editing community to unblock the account. As we clearly pointed out, it is only one person who is editing it and it is not a role account.--Suciindia (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, We find that Admin: Blueboy96 has blocked an IP which is of an academic institution with 1000's of people working. Please review this. No edits were carry out with the IP signatures, it is User: SUCIIndia who did the edits and currently the usre is blocked too. The discussions on an unblock is also ongoing.--Suciindia (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, We reiterate, the message about ===Extra Ordinary Plenum=== citied in the disussions is a fake message. We are not doing any such thing. If there is a way for the Admins or Editors to check the ip of who left the message, you will know that the message is not from the IP used by User: SUCIIndia, User: Sekharlk or User: SUCIUnity. Please check the ips. We also thank the editors who deleted these messages from the talk page of SUCIIndia and Sekharlk. These three acounts are of three different individuals.--Suciindia (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, This account is accessed from The Netherlands. This is not accessed from India or from Oslo. As User: Otolemur crassicaudatus points out, the fake messages and abuses were not at all done by us. Please check the ip numbers before you block or send a message.--Suciindia (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please see the discussions above and in the notice page by the editors

Decline reason:

Role accounts are not allowed Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:07, 1 April 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

It was clearly mentioned in the correspondence that this is not a role account. It is used by a single user and every time demanded by editors other that puppet of User: Kuntan this user has revealed himself. It is only that the user represents a political ideology and that the edits on the pages of SUCI are in line with that ideology. You can also see that none of the edits made by users other than the puppet of User: Kuntan was reverted or edited by this user.

Decline reason:

To the extent this request is understandable, it does not address or disprove the sockpuppetry confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Suciindia. Also, as Mangojuice notes below, there's every indication that this is indeed a group account. The actions of User:Kuntan are not relevant here. — Sandstein (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (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.

If this is not a group account, why do you continually refer to "this account" and "we" rather than "my account" and "I"? It seems clear that even if there is a single individual operating this account, it is being operated on behalf of a group of some kind. Mangojuice^talk 14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear [[User: Magojuice}}, If the article is about a political organization, should that organization be sitting idle if some one is creating an article against its declared ideology and norms, claiming that this article represents the organization? We have given enough third party citations to the arguments that are made which were agreed by editors such as User: Soman. The COI issue is clear to us. Is it that you suggest we operate personal accounts and thereby cheat the community? We could have resorted to a personal account and instead of using the word 'WE' if 'I' was used, it would have been easier. We were not willing to do that as we thought it will be to cheat the editors and readers. Please look into the abuses that User: Kuntan's puppet does to us. He does both personal and political abuses. You are ignoring an already banned user's malpractice and is blaming some one who decided to be open of his allegiance and have only improved an article by adding more third party citations and content. Why dont you tackle the actual culprit doing vandalism; the puppet of User: Kuntan?--Suciindia (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, yours is not the only party that has an article on WP. Many Indian commie groups having articles. The supporters of those parties are not trying to use WP as for their propaganda purpose. Do you think they don't have enough people with computer and Internet literacy? STop fooling around, boy. The unique feature about your party is its unbounded idiocy. The very reason why your leader, teacher and guide and great and foremost thinker of this era is a pariah among Marxists and not appearing in any polemics, political or theoretic. I would strongly urge the admins to give this boy many chances here so that he would learn the inefficacy of the "theory of probability" lessons imparted by those idiotic party gurus. Hey people, this is a unique group. Their leader has pronounced that "Marxism is the science of all sciences". For this reason, any mealy-mouthed party apparatchik is bound by solemn duty to wax eloquently on abstruse scientific theories. Take care,you can expect at any moment pronouncements on theory of uncertainty (quantum mechanics is one of their favorite areas) or on absolute vacuum from this boy. Sivadasabhoshan (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, a practical suggestion. Your party is electioneering, isn't it? You have to assert your loyalty to Indian constitution and Indian state for that? Your leaders and comrades do that without the batting of an eye? How were you able to get around Poeple's Representation ACt? Take the cue from there. Nobody here cares for your revolutionary enthusiasm and communist morality. [The number of asses the pond has seen and vice versa, as the Malayalam saying goes.]Sivadasabhoshan (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why dont the administrators address the issue of User: Kuntan shedding personal abuses against individuals and the organization. This ban was not based on COI or puppetry. It was effected on a false calim of abuse. There is no event of abuse of this account. Please read the comments above and see how a new puppet of User: Kuntan User: Svadasabhoshan is abusing the User: Suciindia. Regarding the so called puppets of User: Suciindia, namely User: Unitysuci and User: Sekharlk I have already told that they are seperate users from the ip. It is an overkill and especially when the administrators who have declined have not considered the ban evation of User: Kuntan

Decline reason:

This is a Role account, used by a group instead of one person. Role accounts are expressly forbidden on all Wikimedia Projects unless they have the express permission to operate from the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Unless it can be proven you have such permission (which I highly doubt) this account will not be unblocked. As for the other accounts mentioned, this block is in regards to you, and and any reasoning for unblock should also be in regards to you only. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:11, 1 April 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear administrators, Please note that this account was not blocked for it being a role account. This account be blocked by falsely alleging it for using it or other accounts abusively. Please check the history of discussions. This account was never used abusively by me. If the block is for it being a role account, there is also not enough proof for it being so other that the claims of this editor. Can you show instances of this account being accessed from multiple ips? This account was always used by a single person. I request you to unblock. Please consider the contributions that this account has made in improving the article. User: Otolemur crassicaudatus and User: Soman who where actively involved in the maintenance of this page knows has already requested for removing the ban. As they suggest, if the administrators still feel this account shall not be unblocked, then do unblock the account User: Sekharlk which at least is a personal account. Do consider the fact that this user is not resorting to creating another account for evading this ban. I am only trying to convince you that this account was not abusively used. If the administrators consider this page not to be unblocked at least remove the tag of blocking this account for being abusively used and replace it with a tag for it being a role account.

Decline reason:

You appear to be talking as if it was a role account, and while that's forbidden too, you were originally blocked for using multiple accounts abusively, which, as far as I'm concerned, still stands. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:46, 2 April 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Administrators, Show an instance of abuse. There was never an abuse and there are no evidences of abuse. To revet vandalism is not an abuse as I understand. I only reverted the edits by an anonymous user and that too with clear descriptions of why it was reverted. And the moment it was reported in the notice board this user also pasted the reasons for why the reverts where made, with concreate evidence of vandalism by a puppet of User: Kuntan. Always all the discussions were replied except that of User: Kuntan as he was abusing based on his personal vengance. And by 'appearing to be talking' it is not still a role account. It is only a role account only if you have concreate evidence to prove so 'per say, use of different ip numbers accessing the account on the same day from different locations, to prove so. You could check with an IP tracer if this account was ever used so.

Decline reason:

Enough ducking the issue ... since you have beaten this particular pony into finely ground yet nevertheless inedible meat, I'll take the bull by the horns and protect the page after this request to spare you the continued abasement you force upon yourself here, not to mention my fellow administrators' time. Let's go over it one more time: For more than one person to be allowed access to an account is, per policy, an inherently abusive use of the account no matter what edits you make. You could post a featured article with it and we'd still block the account indefinitely. I'd ask which part of "one user, one account" you don't understand but it's crystal clear: every single word of it. Have a nice day. Somewhere else. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (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.