User talk:Ashishchandradev

Rajesh Khanna[edit]

In Rajesh Khanna wiki article there is serious need to change the para of his death. He died of cancer. References http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/celebrity/rajesh-khanna-was-suffering-from-cancer-for-the-past-one-year_115624.htm and http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/2012/rajesh-khanna-last-wish-097591.html. It s clear from these artiles that Khanna died of cancer and that though he and his family members knew he was ill a year ago, Khanna had insisted that the news of him being ill and having cancer need not be divulged to the public till after his death. Mumtaz, his close freind and co-star makes it clear in the artcile - http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rajesh-khanna-was-very-close-to-me-mumtaz/976166/ and http://www.filmitadka.in/201207192481/news/mumtaz-and-sharmila-tagore-share-rajesh-khanna-memories.html that Khanna was suffering from cancer and had met him a month before his death. Mumtaz has made it clear and read the 4 artciles i have given above. It was cancer due to which he became slim from 2011-2012.Another refernce says he died of cancer. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Demand-grows-for-Rajesh-Khanna-DVDs/articleshow/15170006.cms. Its hightime that wiki artcile is corrected and its mentioned that Khanna died of Cancer.Onceshook1 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit and remove only these lines - " Dr Trivedi, a spokesman for the hospital, said that he cannot confirm the nature of the illness. However, a friend who acted as his spokesman during the illness had said his food intake had decreased over the previous days and he was "very weak. Onceshook1 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. See WP:REFSPAM. [1] MER-C 10:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Vaidyanath Jyotirlinga, Deogarh, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. You have been warned before about reference spamming. Please stop now. Biker Biker (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. 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. Calmer Waters 07:32, 5 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am new to Wikipedia and was unaware that putting links can trouble my account. Kindly remove the block. Now onwards, I'll adhere to the guidelines. Thanks. Ashish Chandra (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2012 (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.

Why did you ignored your warnings and what do you intend to do if unblocked? Max Semenik (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't ignore the warnings. In fact, I did not know how and where to see the warnings. I am now familiar. Kindly unblock me. You can see that previously I have contributed to Wikipedia without any links. Now about my intention - previously my motive was to promote my website but now I am aware that Wikipedia is not the proper place to do that. Now, my only intention is to contribute something to Wikipedia from time to time. Ashish Chandra (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While it is true that no spamming occurred after you received a final warning, it is indisputable that you did ignore the first one, and that warning included links to all the relevant policies and guidelines, which you failed to heed. Any warning placed on your talk page will cause a big orange banner to appear on any page you view with a link to view your talk page, and that orange banner would have appeared on each and every subsequent edit you made on any page until you viewed your talk page. Therefore it is highly unlikely that you "did not know how and where to see the warnings." The vast bulk of your contribution history suggests that your purpose on Wikipedia is promotion. After you have viewed the policies and guidelines linked in your warnings (specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Spam), convince us that you understand them by explaining in detail what you intend to do here if unblocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2012 (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.

Dear Administrators, I was blocked for spamming my website links. I plead you to unblock me, with a promise to not spam again and that I will now onward stick to all editing guidelines. I am feeling guilty and I also feel that everyone should be given a chance on their first mistake if they convince to not do that mistake again. We are humans and not robots and simply ignoring human feelings is disturbing and unjust.

There is a saying: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." The first impression you provided of yourself resulted in your account being blocked.

Nevertheless, you are being given a second chance. That is what unblock requests are for. So far, however, your unblock requests have failed to convince. I have already explained my reasoning for declining your unblock request above. Please post another one that demonstrates your understanding of the policies and guidelines mentioned above, and another administrator will hopefully consider it more favorably. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am blocked for my wrong deeds. This is my first mistake and I promise to not repeat it again. Furthermore, I want to share my knowledge with the world. Please, unblock me. My only intention now is to contribute my knowledge and wisdom to Wikipedia. I know Wikipedia is beautiful and must remain beautiful. This should be the motto from user, editor and administrator fronts. One mistake must be pardoned. I am guilty and I am feeling dejected from the Wikipedia community. Please consider my heartfelt apologies and unblock me. I promise, I'll prove myself to be a worthy editor in coming days. Ashish Chandra (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've unblocked your account. Please note that the unblock, as normal, is contingent upon stopping the behavior which led to it becoming necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... do you understand that you cannot contribute your personal knowledge on Wikipedia unless you can back it up by reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of you? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I was blocked for putting my website's references along-with information. So, I understand now that only highly reliable references should be cited. Administrators, please be kind on my first mistake and unblock me. Now onwards, I will act responsibly and won't repeat the mistake again. It's a promise to Wikipedia and to myself. Warm regards.

Thank you Wikipedia. You are so kind and beautiful. I'll try to make you a better place. Thanks a lot.