User talk:Ankush98

Your addition to Swami_Vivekananda has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. this edit LeadSongDog come howl! 06:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Ankush98, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tito Dutta (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I know whether some material is copyrighted or not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankush98 (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Copyrights or in brief, don't copy paste from any site. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Asaram Bapu. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge is wealth

I'm Dekhun a boy from pune.Please give me your intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekhun (talk • contribs) 05:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC) What do you want to know ?Do you follow Raj thackerey? I don't.Ankush98 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey which work do you wanted me to keep doing?Dekhun I want you to edit the page of jagatguru asaram bapuji.Are you also his follower like other people?

I thank TitoDutta or the help he made to wikipedia. Bright's disease is nonsuprative inflammation of the kidneys due to bacterial infection.In chronic cases it may lead to uraemia and oedema.Ankush98 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing, continuing despite a short block. You have already received numerous messages about the problems with your editing, including your attempts to promote a point of view and your edit warring, but you have continued. For example, you have continued an edit war from before your previous block: [1], [2], [3], [4]. However, more serious than edit warring and editing to promote a point of view are various dishonest methods you have used. For example, you have attempted to suppress opinions you don't like, by removing other editors' talk page comments: [5]. You have several times used misleading edit summaries, misrepresenting what your edits have been doing. You have repeatedly made assertions about what sources say which are so blatantly at variance with what they actually say that it is difficult to avoid the impression that you are deliberately lying. You have made an edit the purpose of which appears to have been to destroy a reference, apparently in order to prevent people from seeing what it says. If edit warring and pushing a point of view were the only problems with your editing, then I would probably be blocking you for a week at the most. However, because of the grossly dishonest methods you use to try to further your aims, I am taking the relatively unusual step of going straight from a 48 hour block to a month's block. More of the same kind of disruptive editing may well lead to an indefinite block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mountbatten Plan

Decision to be taken on punjab,bengal,sindh,nwfp,sylhet based on voting. It would be upto india and pakistan to decide what relations they would have with each other,and with the british commonwealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.164.203 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC) {{|unblock|2=reason='I wanted to tell that that source is partial,but editors were not listening.This irritated me.'}}[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).

Ankush98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wanted to tell that that source is partial,but editors were not listening.This irritated me

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. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:00, 26 February 2013 (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).

Ankush98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

'I was blocked for disrupting a source. I wanted to tell that the source was partial and real thing could be found at mynews.in/news_details.php?nid=34431&offset=-19.but they did not listen to me. Now I want to be unblocked to convince them once again.'

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:58, 26 February 2013 (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).

Ankush98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for trying to destroy a source.I wanted to tell that the source was partial and real thing could be found at mynews.in/news_details.php?nid=34431&offset=-19.but they did not listen to me. Now I want to be unblocked to convince them once again.therefore there would be no damage now if I am unblocked.I promise You that.

Decline reason:

Please do not keep repeating the same request; it does not address the reason for your block.It is necessary that you understand and accept the reason for your block, and repeating the reason behind your unacceptable behaviour does not do it. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:46, 8 March 2013 (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).

Ankush98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for disrupting a source,and an edit war. It has been a long time,so now I would like to do something constructive with circuit analysis .Please unblock meAnkush98 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Considering the history of your other account, Kanuraj123 (talk · contribs) and basically using the same unblock request again that you made on the other account, I don't see a compelling explanation why the block should be lifted. Also considering that after you were unblocked, you were once again blocked for disruption at Asaram Bapu, we need a better explanation on what you will do/what steps you're going to take to edit constructively. You will also need to address the socking issues. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:35, 20 September 2015 (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.