User talk:Ankush135

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent Ankush135 (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Ankush! I, Ambuj Saxena, welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing!
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Links for Wikipedians interested in India content

Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard Browse: India | Open tasks | Deletions
Contribute content: Collaboration Dashboard - India WikiProject - Wikiportal India - Indian current events - Category adoptions


— Ambuj Saxena (☎) 12:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

edits to Romila Thapar

pls ensure that material about living people comply with Wikipedia guidelines. controversial content should be sourced to reliable sources, written in a neutral manner and must not be given undue weight. Doldrums 17:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to reading Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which your edits to Romila Thapar appear to contravene, you should acquaint yourself with the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule, which you will violate if you re-insert the material you've been putting in the article. Please discuss your edits at Talk:Romila Thapar. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, I have gone through the policy and do accept that my initial post (it was unsigned) may have not adhered to the guidelines in the strictest sense of the word.

However, I am clear enough that my other insertions were all in line with the policy. Infact, it convinces me that the current page, which you all have so zealously protected isn't what it should have been, if guidelines were to be implemented in toto.

As far as re-insertion is concerned, it was only a logical response to mindless edits. The talk continues on the page but the responses in no way answer the queries which I have raised Ankush135 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags

Stop putting sockpuppet tags on people unless you have proof. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For one, I don't use pseudonames unlike other righteous beings

Secondly, this was in response to tags which I had received

The tag that was put on your page was by the now blocked User:Pickled herring red and an IP. Not necessarily by the two people that you tagged. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

reverts

this is a good time to introduce you to the three revert rule. Doldrums 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


My, what presumptions people have of other's ignorance

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This blocking is totally without basis and in extremely bad faith. Before accusing someone of being a sock, the administrator should make the efforts to find out if there is some truth in those allegations. Else, she/he is simply not worth being an admin. Renounce your admin rights then"

Decline reason: "Inadequate request. See User:Sandstein/Unblock for more advice. — Sandstein 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This user's request to have the autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been DECLINED.

Sock of one of the sub-continental trolls, can't tell but is blatently seen in this sock tagging of established users in his first 50 edits

  • Decline reason:

You have not been autoblocked. However, you have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock|your_reason_here}} to your talk page. -- Sandstein 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, Akhilleus accused me of acting in bad faith and someone else advised me on Not sockpuppeting someone.

Doldrums is one person who refuses to engage in any sort of discussion for he seems to believe that he has been given the God ordained right to decide on matters beyond his comprehension

The worst part of the scum attack is blocking of my account by some DaGizza on the pretext of being some 'Sock of one of the sub-continental trolls, can't tell but is blatently seen in this sock tagging of established users in his first 50 edits'

It is utter rubbish and is simply an indicator of the rotten mentality of people like DaGizza who rush to enforce order without checking the basis of the allegations or perusing the discussion on the talk page

Honestly, you people are so sick that it makes me puke


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This blocking is totally without basis and in extremely bad faith. Before accusing someone of being a sock, the administrator should make the efforts to find out if there is some truth in those allegations. I use a remote access card for accessing internet when I am not using the office network. You will know that Remote Access Cards provide a different IP each time they get connected. Anyways, I have always signed whenever I have made any edit or insert. On what basis have I been declared a sock of some South Asian troll? Simply the fact that my opinion on one page differs from some administrators here? And what language? What does DaGizza think himself to be? A beauty queen? If it doesn't register, please note that Ankush 135 is the only profile I have. It is disgusting that dDaGizza has simply blocked me and all ips I access (automatically) from contributing without even attempting to verify? Is this fair play or is this the way Wikipedians promote knowledge sharing by way of healthy debate? Is this what Wikipedians are all about? Shame"

Decline reason: "reason — I agree with the original admin's decision to block. ugen64 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This blocking is totally without basis and in extremely bad faith. Before accusing someone of being a sock, the administrator should make the efforts to find out if there is some truth in those allegations.

   I use a remote access card for accessing internet when I am not using the office network. You will know that Remote Access Cards provide a different IP each time they get connected. Anyways, I have always signed whenever I have made any edit or insert and those edits were limited to insterting the 'neutrality disputed' tag on the Romila Thapar page, which were being reverted.
On what basis have I been declared a sock of some South Asian troll? Simply the fact that my opinion on one page differs from some administrators here? And what language? What does DaGizza think himself to be? A beauty queen? If it doesn't register, please note that Ankush 135 is the only profile I have. It is disgusting that DaGizza has simply blocked me and all ips I access (automatically) from contributing without even attempting to verify? Is this fair play or is this the way Wikipedians promote knowledge sharing by way of healthy debate? Is this what Wikipedians are all about?)"

Decline reason: "Your block appears to have been reasonable. Continuing to make personal attacks against the blocking admin and post unblock requests is completely unacceptable. If you would like to appeal your block at this point, please contact the arbitration committee. — krimpet⟲ 04:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.