User talk:Eshwar.om

Thanks for your appreciation on Sarasvati river

Dear Eshwar.om, I tried to do what I felt most appropriate, at the best of my knowledge. You can have a better understanding of my points if you look at my much detailed explanatory discussion on the Sarasvati river with some of the experienced editors @User talk:Kautilya3 under the section titled "Saraswati and myth-making" .

Best regards. --BodduLokesh (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chera dynasty

You are still messing around with images at Chera dynasty despite umpteen people noting at WP:ANI that this aspect of your work is one of the many where you display signs of lacking competence. So, stop and discuss rather than edit war, please. Handing out a few barnstars etc to people who have criticised your efforts is not a get out of jail card. - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And your restoration of gibberish at Valmiki was no better. - Sitush (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The pen is mightier than the sword,so please could you explain why those images should not present in Chera dynasty?! When in Rome, do as the Romans,(Handing out a few barnstars etc to people).got it?Eshwar.omTalk tome 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.".i believe on that.Eshwar.omTalk tome 05:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator advice

@Eshwar.om: I'm concerned that you don't appear to be heeding the guidance you have been given at WP:ANI and elsewhere to avoid disruption to the Encyclopedia. Editing here is a privilege, not a right and if you do not work cooperatively with other editors, your editing rights will be suspended or removed as someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 05:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eshwar.om, as you are aware (notification diff), India articles are subject to arbcom discretionary sanctions. If you continue to edit disruptively, you will find yourself banned from editing any articles related to India. You should heed Philg88's advice above and edit very carefully from now on. --regentspark (comment) 11:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes i am aware of that.thanksEshwar.omTalk tome 12:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Dear Talk tome i have certain points that i would like to share relating to tamil & sanskrit. May i know the languages known to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.236.255.113 (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


the thing is basically i m from japan.but yes i know this two languages.i am not well scholar .but i m ok with that.Eshwar.omTalk tome 09:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a long-term pattern of uncooperative editing and lack of necessary editing and language skills. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=}}.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 9 May 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

see for all my edits i given reliable sources.you mentioned uncooperative editing.after alert message given by RegentsPark i never do even a single edit.it is really painful painful for me.Please reconsider.My area of interest how could come uncooperative edit.consider this. now from my end there is no chance for further appeal.how can i say my point to ANI. indefinite block is really makes me feel bad .Please reconsider .thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 13:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC

Decline reason:

Your poor command of the English language makes it quite difficult to understand your request, but it does not appear to address the reasons for your block. Have you considered contributing in the Wikipedia of your native language?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:32, 9 May 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

It says I've been "indefinitely" blocked. What does that mean and how do I get unblocked?
Is that only reason what you mentioned above?!
Wont i contribute here again?!
What can I do now?Eshwar.omTalk tome 01:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't addressed the reason for your block, which indicates that your attitude to English Wikipedia remains unchanged. For further information on indefinite blocks, please see this essay.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:56, 10 May 2015 (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.

Here is what you have to do;

There are many sister Wikipedia projects such as en.wikiquote.org, simple.wikipedia.org, commons.wikimedia.org. Select any of them or all, and try to contribute there for about 6 months without creating any havoc like you did here. I believe that you will be granted with unblock, and consider making at least 1000 edits. Best of luck! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing to another project is no longer considered as part of the standard offer any more. See WP:OFFER. Regardless of the standard offer, contributing to ENWP requires a fairly advanced level of English, not only for the presentation of an article but also for communication with others. Should Eshwar.om achieve that level of ability, there'd certainly be a case to be made for their return. Blackmane (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

  Philg88 ♦talk 12:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Swami Vivekananda and Tamils

The article Swami Vivekananda and Tamils has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This isn't about a book or a chapter in a book, it's a one paragraph translated extract from an out of copyright work. As it's such a small extract, there's no point in transwikiing to wikisource either.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —SpacemanSpiff 15:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pillaiyar (disambiguation)

The article Pillaiyar (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This isn't a proper dab, it confuses a disambiguation with a starting string, the places included aren't shortened or referred to in such a manner.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —SpacemanSpiff 16:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chieftain Pulli

The article Chieftain Pulli has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Misrepresentation of source, the source (translated) quotes a 3rd century poet saying that the hill belonged to a chieftain by the name of Pulli, that's about it. No reference to him being a ruler or even the full name etc etc

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —SpacemanSpiff 16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]