Ankush135
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
edit
|
 Links for Wikipedians interested in India-related content | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is a collection of links to WikiProject pages and Category pages relevant to India-related content | |||||||||||||||
| WP:India | |||||||||||||||
| WikiProjects |
| ||||||||||||||
| Newcomers |
| ||||||||||||||
edits to Romila Thapar
editpls 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
editStop 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
editthis 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
Ankush135 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
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)
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.
- Ankush135 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 203.112.80.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
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 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 the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. 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
Ankush135 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
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)
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.
Ankush135 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
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)
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.