User talk:Njavallil

User talk:Njavallil/Template

Monsey Church review

Hi Njavallil. I wanted to discuss this review that you did. I don't think it was sufficiently detailed to be clear that you had evaluated all aspects of the good article criteria. Please see Wikipedia:GAN under How to review an article: "Provide a detailed review of the article on the review page." Would you be able to provide a detailed reasoning now? Looking at how other reviews are done may also help before reviewing further. --99of9 (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Talk:Texas State University–San Marcos/GA1. Bencherlite^Talk 00:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback Granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Mifter (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Divineabraham

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Divineabraham (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

sorry to ask as help, but i'm not allowed to edit any other page than my talk page, could Favonian be alerted to look at my page?????? Help !!!!!! Please!!!!!!!!

Blocked?????

You can block me, But please unblock me at my User:Divineabraham. Please, before blocking look at my contributions, if you still say i'm no good to wiki you know, i don't wanna go from wiki. look at the main page i made User:Njavallil/Mainpage isn't it good? look at my edit!!! my contributions!!!! and my edits!!!! have I done any BIg vandalisms in my account (). I was bad, but that dosen't mean I'm still bad. and now i'm a roll backer!!! Thank you. --Njavallil ...Talk 2 Me 20:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points of order:

1. If you're blocked as an editor then all your accounts will be blocked and you certainly won't have rollback on one.
2. To get unblocked you need to understand that creating still other accounts while blocked, as you admit, is part of the problem.
3. Whilst maybe not used for vandalism, your edits under this account show significant problems that amount to disruption such as incorrect reverts (your recent first rollback request was duly declined), superficial GA reviews, actually also creating a 'new' mainpage design without any attribution.

The only thing I'll do here is 'move' your current talk access to User talk:Divineabraham, that is disable the talk page it here and enable you to make an unblock request there as User:Divineabraham which is your preferred account and and also the original one for everybody else. But unless you REALLY reflect a moment AND read the guide to appealing blocks, it'll be in vain. And don't think about abusing the talk page. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anthiyalam

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

Fails WP:NGEO, lacks any sources or references

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Dan arndt (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]