User talk:Pulak Chakraborty

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Pulak Chakraborty, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

This is Pulak Chakraborty's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Pulak Chakraborty. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Nexxus Studios, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Golondaaj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dev.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for that, its now fixed. Thank you --Pulak Chakraborty (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ForeVision Studios[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ForeVision Studios, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. // Timothy :: talk 14:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Pulak Chakraborty. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page ForeVision Studios, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 14:52, 27 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hey, there please unblocked me, it was a huge mistake. Please do something. Pulak Chakraborty (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2021 (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.

Pulak Chakraborty (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Now I understand why I'm blocked for, I extremely for the mistakes, It was really a bad staff. I apologize for that, & I ensured that I'll never do that mistake again. Please give me a chance to recover my mistakes. Thank you.[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).

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

Request reason:

Now I understand why I'm blocked for, I extremely for the mistakes, It was really a bad staff. I apologize for that, & I ensured that I'll never do that mistake again. Please give me a chance to recover my mistakes. I hope you'll give a chance to me for recover my mistake. Once again, I extremely sorry for that. Pulak Chakraborty (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, you're not going into any specifics about what you got blocked for and how you have come to understand what it was you did that got you blocked and what you'll do instead of that if we unblock you. Second, I'm not really sure your English-language skills are up to this. Third, I really hate begging; we're not that powerful and it just makes you come across as so indignified. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I know very well why I am blocked. A few days ago I wrote an article on Wikipedia, And I published that article without adding any reference. It was a mistake for me to publish that article on Wikipedia, The article is not suitable for publication on Wikipedia. Yeah, Now I understand editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. If anyone unblocked me then I didn't make the mistakes again & I'll definitely work on Wikipedia more & contribute on here, And that is what I will do in the contribution that should be done according to the rules of Wikipedia. Pulak Chakraborty (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:24, 10 March 2021 (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 only addresses part of the problem with your edits, not all of the problem. You seem to be demonstrating you don't actually understand our policies and guidelines and how you've violated them, so we shouldn't unblock you. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I agree with you. It was my mistakes for do not mentioned the points. I understand the policies very well, and I agree with @Jimfbleak: for blocking me. Because my edit or post was violating the rules of this site. That's why I'm got blocked. You may check my old contribution, You'll understand I'm good or bad for Wikipedia. It was my last mistakes on here. I'll definitely want to contribute more on here. I ensured that I'll follow policies if I get unblocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

It was a biggest mistake, I was created a page on Wikipedia which doesn't qualified Wikipedia's guideline, I totally agree with wikipedia policies, I apologies my mistakes, if I get the second chance I'll definitely never do that mistake again, I ensured that in future I'll definitely never violate Wikipedia rules. If anyone unblocked me this time, I'll do my best. Pulak Chakraborty (talk) 5:12 am, 3 April 2021, Saturday (1 month, 8 days ago) (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

Unconvincing rationale, and I can't disagree with Daniel Case's concerns about language competency. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ok, what to do right now! I have learned from my mistake, I was wrong, that doesn't mean I will make the mistake again. What about my contributions, that means everything is fake? no not that, I was wrong, I was made a mistake, but now I wanted to fix'em all. Pulak Chakraborty (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your block history and talk page communication I simply cannot believe that this was a mistake. It is persistent spamming plain and simple. I find your claim that it was a mistake disingenuous.
You do not get unlimited block reviews. I suggest you move onto another website for your purposes as you are not likely to be allowed to edit here in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:57, 5 June 2021 (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.