User talk:AAP ka Lawyer

"I edited without an account for ages" AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as your edits belong on the talk page.

Please don't do that again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 05:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are u referring for ? AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, I think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I shall again copy it to talk page over there. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bother. It has been discussed to death. You are, of course, familiar with WP:LTA/IAC and so should know this. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so famillar with IAC, but I am curious about the date discrepancy. The page says the Team Anna is from 2012 after split (AAP formed in Nov 2012) but the Hindu paper says Nov 2011 ?. So who is right then, Hindu or you ? AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Except, of course, AAP did form in Nov 2012. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Team Anna formed in Februar 2011 and famous in April 2011 at 5th April jantar mantar Anna 'anshan'. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I used Google, [1] Team Anan referenced in June 2011. [2] Arundhati Roy in The Hindu says Govt of India invited "Team Anna" (the brand name they chose for themselves) in April 2011. So page is wrong about 2012 date for Team Anna formation. It is April 2011 like I remembered. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Do you have a conflict of interest? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already clarify on my page that I have no conflict of interest and I hold no brief for any record I edit here. Also see [3] AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atisihi Marlena

This is a particularly bad edit among your many recent poor contributions. The link works, take my word for it. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... As is this? You're reinstating the claim that he was a lawyer by dint of his LLB but saying that isn't enough in your edit summary. Do you read before reverting or what? - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be deceitful, I removd a non-working link [4] see [5] but you undid it with remark Undid revision 737637382 by AAP ka Lawyer (talk) - nothing wrong with using this for the purpose [6] which presumably you check before restoring it.AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article again, and read my edit summaries. Then apologise for calling me a liar. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary too confusing. The program speed is also to slow and giving me cached page. I never call you liar. The file in the article when I first replace it was not found XLS file. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summaries are usually pretty good. Cached pages have nothing to do with it. You did call me a liar. You didn't read the article as I suggested. And in any case you should not remove deadlinks without extremely good cause, eg: we can use the Wayback Machine or check for site reorganisation. You should know all of this because you have obviously been around for quite a while - only the experienced would know where to find WP:LTA/IAC, for example, as you did. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which edit summary did you acknowledge that the XLS link is not working ? Is it not deceitful to say nothing wrong with using this when the link is not working and then you slip in a new link without proper explanation ? Do you know what Google is ? see [7] if you don't. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are displaying many of the behaviours that the accounts at WP:LTA/IAC did before you. You may wish to consider that. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seem you have the problem with Indian editing English language wiki and believe Indians and Pakistani should edit in Hindi / Urdu versions. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now you think I am a racist as well as a liar? This is getting better by the minute. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, liar, and racist are your words. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence that I want Indians and Pakistanis to stay away from en-WP. You called me deceitful. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I called your edit summary deceitful and I have fully explained why. If you want evidence please go to some law court and hire Sandeep Kumar as your lawyer? Now stop wasting my time and do something useful somewhre else. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that there is nothing wrong with using a deadlink in that manner. Thus, the summary was not deceitful. I know who I won't turn to when I need a lawyer, ie: someone who doesn't read the ~~article~~ paperwork right in front of their eyes first. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must be deaf because you are not listening when I say stop discussing this. I have explained why old pages are coming from cache causing confusion. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of Conflict of Interest

If you have concerns about someone having a Conflict of Interest, you can report them at WP:COIN.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back after the RfA problem, User:VictoriaGrayson. I am not sure who you are addressing here but I think the issue for most people who have been involved with AAP ka Lawyer relates to WP:LTA/IAC, not COI. It is all rather unfortunate, as was your absence from the RfA after the initial comments that you made there. Stuff happens and the lines of AGF get blurred sometimes, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:27, 24 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no idea why you blocked me and would like you to undo it. Else please explain WHY u blocked me so I can appeal it. Which is the other account involved ? I have nothing to do with Victoria Grayson thnx AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one open request at a time. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 1 November 2016 (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.

I have reverted the close of the unblock request above, as it was done by an impersonator using a fake signature. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I read the sockpuppertry page. It says if X is a sockpuppet she must be a sockpuppet of Y. Since I have not made edit for 2 months I need to know who is the Y who is sockpuppet of me. Yes, yes, I can say very truthfully that I have only edits as IP just before opening this account. If I know opening account will cause so much problem I will never open account. Hope you understand and do needful AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The behavioural overlaps are extremely compelling and I have zero doubt that you are an unrelated editor. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 1 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a witch hunt conduct for purpose of censorship. There is just no reason to put my account and edit history on IAC sockpuppet page. Be honest, the reason I am blocked is because I opposed adminship of the complainer - Vanamonde. The reason I opposed Vanamonde for admin is because I know the real life identity of this admin and I had raised questions from which anyone can identify the admin from their self interested conflicted editing at Wikipedia. It is shameful that Wiki apoints such admins who are secretly editing in their own cause and taking out editors with different views. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is clear that you have no interest in contributing to the encyclopaedia, just here to forward your interests like the long term abuse from your peers. I'm removing talk page access now as you don't have any interest in addressing the reasons for your block. —SpacemanSpiff 10:42, 2 November 2016 (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.