User talk:Naayar

The user essay that I referred to in my edit summary of the

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

Done more clear to you and if you dont go by rules then it is against and not good. I made a new discussion on the talk page and talk there for anything. If you continue to skip to discuss and make changes as you did before it is negative from you and so follow it. ---- Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on

carnatic Music talkpage.Naayar (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. I made sure several times with you to be matured enough to make changes to articles to improve it or update on lack of information. But you going beyond and destroying the article on your view point and thinking what you feel or believe should be added. It simply shows with your recent edits in Carnatic music article. Since I made changes, you wantedly added a new para in the lead section and again on your own simply removing the edit changes that I made. Are you playing around here. If you cannot accept other editors work no one can do anything. If further you break or change the constructive changes it may lead to serious charges. Be informed and prepared. ----Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Expert": Why did you erase the data about nadaswaram in Carnatic music? --Opus88888 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though needed for the article still it is the wrong place. Naayar (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to the article carnatic music only on the purpose of lack of meaning and unclear sentence forming which had no meaning. You seem to edit just to omit my inclusion and enforce your edits. It certainly looks bad from your recent actions. I am never against anyones edit unless it is explained clear and supported with acceptable verifiable references. Its better you take some time before making changes immediately simply to avoid other editors work. Try to understand it. Do some good work and allow us to do some good work. ---- Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid over using websites as references. Instead of acting like a judge please participate in constructive editing. No one owns the article. Also please do not use wrong words as 'Obscene' in your response. Thanks. Naayar (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Carnatic music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyderabad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did days of research found who is Naadpriya. He appears to be a Kannadiga with Hindu background. I am a Keralite with strong Chrsitian values.Please see my edits. I am not Naadapriya. Please unblock

Decline reason:

Quack, quack. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:23, 26 May 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Plase do not block based on 'minority view points' None of the following Duck litmus tests are applicable to my edits

1. Beyond a reasonable doubt;
2. Clear and convincing evidence;
3. Preponderance of the evidence; and
4. The duck test (reasonable suspicion).

KINDLY PLEASE UNBLOCK

Decline reason:

I'm getting tinnitus from the quacking I'm hearing; disabling talkpage access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:25, 28 May 2012 (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.

Naayar (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare

isn't it beyond obvious that both accounts are shared by the same person? →Bmusician 00:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]