Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ankush135: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:02, 5 September 2007 editAnkush135 (talk | contribs)59 edits →reverts← Previous edit Revision as of 12:19, 5 September 2007 edit undoSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,191 edits decline unblockNext edit →
Line 96: Line 96:
My, what presumptions people have of other's ignorance My, what presumptions people have of other's ignorance


{{unblock|''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''}} {{unblock reviewed|1=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=Inadequate request. See ] for more advice. — ] 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)}}

⚫ {{unblock-auto|1=203.112.80.139|2=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|3=DaGizza}}


⚫ {{unblock-auto reviewed|203.112.80.139|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|DaGizza|sig=] 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)}}
Yesterday, Akhilleus accused me of acting in bad faith and someone else advised me on Not sockpuppeting someone. Yesterday, Akhilleus accused me of acting in bad faith and someone else advised me on Not sockpuppeting someone.


Revision as of 12:19, 5 September 2007

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!

Hello Ankush! I, Ambuj Saxena, welcome you to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
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
Region
Religion
State
UTs
Cities
Culture
Other
Newcomers

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

edits to Romila Thapar

pls ensure that material about living people comply with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons, which your edits to Romila Thapar appear to contravene, you should acquaint yourself with the

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 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).

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.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
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