User talk:Mitrabarun

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitabarun, you are NOT permitted to remove block notices while they are in effect. I'm not going to edit-war with you on this, but removing them when they are required to remain on your talkpage could result in the removal of your access to the talkpage while blocked. Please react accordingly ES &L 11:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for chronic copyright violations. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 08:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked here indefinitely as i have been blocked in commons.wikipedia.org for 3 Days, why this one indefinitely, i have provided license information asked by wiki wizard still the last image was alos delete. I wan't to be reviewed it by a worthy administrator Mitrabarun (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 1 October 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.

You've been blocked here indefinitely because the latest work in your sandbox demonstrated to me that you have no intention of following copyright laws, given that it appeared to be a direct copy from http://thought-rjk.blogspot.com/2010/09/age-of-thought-by-richard-jkosciejew.html. Looking over your block log, contribution history, and repeated lies over these topics, I see no reason to believe you can be a trustworthy contributor.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that any admin who patrols unblock requests is a "worthy administrator". The only one who cannot decline your unblock is the blocking admin - although they could accept it if it was WP:GAB-compliant. Copyright is serious legal stuff - if you cannot recognize that, then Wikipedia is not (and will not) be the place for you - people have been more than patient with you up to this point. ES &L 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: To the Administrators

As per research not all the articles in wikipedia are copyright free as they are modified in such a way that no one can recognize it. Hence, I would like to know when the block will be removed ? If No, then kindly deactivate or delete my account as there are much more reputed sites available to contribute which welcome happily & i'm not interested here in so much restrictions ! Thank You !

Feel free to request that your user page be deleted. I don't think anyone is interested in lifting your block.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas cannot be copyrighted; words can. Thus, there are other articles that do take information and ideas found in other sources and restate them in our own words; there's no copyright violation there. Copying words (or images) wholesale is another matter entirely.

Accounts are not deleted on Wikipedia. Your user page may be deleted, and this user talk page may be pared back to just the block notice, but the history of the account will remain. Beyond that, there's nothing further to be done to inactivate the account; you're free to just "walk away" from the site and not edit here further. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYRIGHT will be an issue anywhere you go. Yes, because Wikipedia is drawn from reliable sources, articles are often include re-wording, but it cannot be too close to the original. Copy/paste is never permitted, nor is re-use of images from elsewhere on the internet - and that's the same law at all sites besides Wikipedia. If you no longer wish to participate in this project, then stop logging in - we do not ever delete accounts. As you have an extensive history of putting this project at risk by breaking copyright law, we would certainly need full understanding that you will never, ever put this project at risk again in the future. All of your statements show that you don't yet understand what you have been doing wrong, and that you plan to break the law elsewhere too ES &L 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: To Administrators

If you have really seen my history then i have been blocked in an article as because that time i was not aware of that issue. But recently thing I've uploaded I've provided proper licensing still it was ignored. I respect wikipedia as it a great place to find new things. But the volunteers are not cooperative !. Once again i am asking when will be the block expired !

It doesn't expire. It's in place until you convince people that you will actually respect copyrights.—Kww(talk) 18:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To be clear: You're asserting that the article you started in your sandbox about glacial erosion was your own work and not copied from somewhere else? @Kww: It's not in the log; where else did you see the text that you determined was a copyright infringement? —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://thought-rjk.blogspot.com/2010/09/age-of-thought-by-richard-jkosciejew.html. —Kww(talk) 18:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is a word-for-word copy.

@Mitrabarun: Since that was the last edit you made before you were blocked, how do you defend it? I note that you received messages here, on your talk page, going as far back as August about copyright policies here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:C.Fred

If you've really find it on the net you will also find it on Microsoft Student 2007 DVD. Now this can be one thing that Microsoft Corporation has copied it from http://thought-rjk.blogspot.com/2010/09/age-of-thought-by-richard-jkosciejew.html or vice - versa. Now you people decide who is the law breaker

It doesn't really matter, ultimately, who the rights holder is. What matters is that you copied it knowing that it was somebody else's work. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've told this because we are talking about copyright issue. And one thing i would assure that copyright material issue won't be happen anymore if further happen i won't request anyone to unblock so User:C.Fred can you tell me the expiry date of my block ?

You are blocked indefinitely. Your account will remain blocked until you request to be unblocked and convince an administrator that you understand the copyright rules and are willing to abide by them. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:C.Fred

Okay if you cooperate i will never let this happen ! I will follow copyright rules User:C.Fred

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).

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

Request reason:

Will follow Wiki Copyright Rules, it won't happen again Mitrabarun (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've declined this request, both because of the discussion down below with Andy Dingley and because the discussion at WP:AN appears to agree that an unblock is not a good idea right now. I'd suggest that you wait a while before filing any other unblock requests. You're still welcome to contribute at other Wikimedia Foundation websites (e.g. Wikimedia Commons and the Hindi Wikipedia), and becoming a helpful contributor there would be a good way of demonstrating that you should be unblocked here. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 5 October 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.

So, as per WP:GAB you'll need to:

EXPLAIN those copyright rules in your own words
EXPLAIN how your edits in the past have broken those rules
EXPLAIN how your future edits will not violate those rules.

Only then could you potentially be unblocked ES &L 19:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking Request Terms : To follow

So as per WP:GAB i understand the following terms as per Wikipedia rules:

1. That i should not use material which are copyright protected.

  i) Should not use it without prior permission of the copyright holder.
  ii) Should not upload copyright items.
  iii) Should not copy text, word to word from other source on the internet.

2. That i understand my past edit may/has caused copyright violation & materials which are uploaded may be subject to copyright.

3. I Assure that my future edit won't cause copyright violation. If cause, i may be blocked permanently from editing across Wikipedia. I assure i will strictly try to follow Wikipedia copyright rules and regulations. I will not void any rules.

I therefore, request administrator to kindly review my request and do the needful.

Thank You ! (Mitrabarun (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Re:User:EatsShootsAndLeaves

Hello ! User:EatsShootsAndLeaves Please let me know how much time would it take to review by block as it's almost 2 Days since the last reply. Thank You ! (Mitrabarun (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have pinged the administrator notice board. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock_request Someone should be by to review sometime today. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can take many days for an admin to review it. There's no hurry, and impatience is usually seen as a bad sign, as opposed to a good sign. If I was reviewing it, I'm not sure I'd see it as fully explaining things, but another admin might see the WP:ROPE and possibly even impose certain restrictions - such as restricting you from uploading any images for a period of 3 or 6 months ES &L 14:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I know that you are impatiently waiting and after looking this request over, I can see why there is such a delay in responding. The problem that you are facing is that when WP:GAB says that you need to, "EXPLAIN those copyright rules in your own words", and your answer to that is a short sentence that does nothing for anyone and a copy/paste of the policy, that is not in your "own words" demonstrating an understanding of the policy and not just that you can read and type it back out. I strongly suggest you try re-doing:
1. EXPLAIN those copyright rules in your own words.
2. EXPLAIN how your edits in the past have broken those rules.
3. EXPLAIN how your future edits will not violate those rules.

It should be at least a paragraph (3-7 sentences) for each of those. Perhaps then you will find an administrator willing to unblock you. Good luck. Technical 13 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Understand the following terms as per WP:GAB

1.Copyright rules : I understand that using copyright material is against Wikipedia rules and regulations. I should not use any copyright material across any Wikipedia articles/products etc. Should not use any material in Wikipedia without going through its copyright status. A proper permission should be obtained from the copyright holder to use it in Wikipedia. Only those material can be used which fall under public domain or their copyright is disclaimed.

2.Edits that voided Copyright rules : I understand that my past edit may/has broken copyright rules. I've used copyright material that are not supposed to be used on Wikipedia as copyrighted materials are not welcomed in Wikipedia without prior permission from the copyright holder. My edits may certainly caused copyright violation and i understand these now. Some of my edits are word to word copy which are suppose not to be used. Material which has been copied by me from any source of the internet has also caused copyright violation.

3.Future edits will not violate : I understand that my future edits should be copyright free. I agree not to use copyright material across Wikipedia on my future edits. I also understand that i should not upload copyright medias. My future articles should not contain from the internet which are copyright protected. I strictly adhere all the Wikipedia rules and would not try to void it in the near future.

(Mitrabarun (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I therefore request honorable administrators to kindly review my request. Thank You !

Your statement, "using non-copyright material is against Wikipedia rules" ("using copyright material is against Wikipedia rules" wouldn't have been any better) indicates that you still don't actually understand copyright, licensing, the distinction between them and their implications for Wikipedia. As such, it would still be hard to recommend your unblocking.

The question is not one of copyright (a great deal of material on Wikipedia is subject to other people's copyright), it is one of permission. This permission can either be granted (material under a Creative Commons licence or similar still has a copyright, but it also has a licence) or it might not be needed (typically for public domain material, some of which is no longer subject to copyright). It is an unworkable over-simplification to say "Wikipedia requires non-copyright", or even (as your confused sentence states) "Wikipedia requires copyright". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:talk

Thank you User:Andy Dingley. Sorry for that mistake. Kindly review once. Thanks again !(Mitrabarun (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

No sense even requesting unblock for at least 3 months - once your unblock review went to AN, and the community consensus became to keep blocked, your options went down the tube ES &L 10:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User:EatsShootsAndLeaves

Didn't get you, please make it clear User:EatsShootsAndLeaves !

Request for Unblock review

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).

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

Request reason:

I want administrator(s) to review my request again. If the block is for more than one month then i would like to remove all my personal information on my user page & all my past personal information edits. (AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE). Thank You !

Decline reason:

I'm going to recommend what Eats Shoots & Leaves said: the community is not ready to unblock you at this time, so I recommend you wait at least three months before applying for a further unblock. The discussion above indicates that you do not have a grasp on copyright as it applies to Wikipedia. After three months, you may then initiate discussion here about an unblock. (I have this talk page watchlisted; I'll see the request.) Obviously, you'll need to demonstrate a better grasp of licensing policies and why/how we place such strict restrictions on non-free material here on Wikipedia.
In light of that timeframe, I have honored your request and deleted your user page under CSD U1. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 5 October 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.

Re: Request for Unblock review

Thank you C.Fred for accepting my request. One thing i would like to know that the talk page is accessible publicly ? If yes, then please make it visible to admins only. And will my unblock request will be reviewed after 3 months ? Please suggest me ways to do it better way for future i.e. to put a good unblock request! Thanks Again !

(Mitrabarun (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The history of a user talk page remains visible; they are generally never deleted because of the need to preserve history. Further, declined unblock requests can generally not be removed from the page while the block is in force.

You'll need to initiate a new unblock request after three months; it won't be reviewed automatically.

One thing to think about for your next unblock request is to provide a suggestion of a good edit you'd make: what article you'd change, what change you'd make, and what reliable source backs up the change. That's one more way you can demonstrate that you understand the editing guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first things you need to learn is to stop making headers again and again - this entire page is essentially one single discussion. In order to reply to someone, you merely add a colon : to indent one level further. Sections should only exist for new topics, not continuing conversations. This is not a necessity, but basic wiki editing no matter where you go (see WP:TPG).

I will state that your second attempt at discussing copyright was much closer to what I as an admin would have been looking for. Proving extended and comprehensive understanding of the rules that led to your block was key - copy/pasting in your original was actually the equivalent of violating the same copyright problems.

I would personally suggest you go and try to edit one of the English Wikipedia sister projects - I'm not sure if you speak another language, but all projects could benefit from help - but remember, the same rules essentially apply there.

In terms of a future unblock, you will personally need to make a brand-new request in 3 months - no sooner than Jan 5, 2014. In that unblock request, show that you have indeed learned - even link to the work you have done on another Wikipedia project. WP:GAB and WP:AAB have been pointed out to you, but I'm not sure you have ever read them.

In terms of privacy - your talkpage is public, and always will be - it's a record of attempts to communicate with you. It cannot be deleted. ES &L 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion

User:MitrabarunMitra seems like Mitrabarun. Both interested in information technology. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the content that was at Mitrabarun, I'd say it's highly likely that both are the same person. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible"? Blocked and tagged.—Kww(talk) 02:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise. User:MitrabarunMitra is already requesting unblock, claiming that he is a different Mitrabarun Mitra, IT worker.—Kww(talk) 06:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules !

C.Fred This is not my account and i don't want to make things critical by making such mistake ! Please let me know, if i can help Kww(Mitrabarun (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs) [reply]

It's pretty apparent what's going on: you tried to create a second account to get past the block on this one, and I blocked it. Now, you are here to see if you can deceive people into believing that it is somehow a coincidence that one Mitrabarun Mitra created an account immediately another Mitrabarun Mitra was blocked.—Kww(talk) 07:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you became administrator in Wikipedia. You don't have a sense that two person can share common attributes.I don't care about the other one i don't want this account to be messed (Mitrabarun (talk))

It had a lot to do with being difficult to trick.—Kww(talk) 07:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that user. One thing i know that it is not my account. It's your choice believe it or not and i damn care about it. Just don't mess things on my talk page Kww (Mitrabarun (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If you don't mind my asking, how did you even know this issue came up? One would assume that, since we'd suggested you wait at least three months before requesting again to be unblocked, that you wouldn't even have been by your user talk page to see the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to C.Fred

C.Fred Just wan't know will my account will be unblocked after 3 months ! And regarding that account it's not mine ! Thank You !

No one has ever said that your account will be unblocked after three months. What they've said is that you should wait three months before you even bother to ask again. I can promise you that, at that time, if you continue to lie about your behaviour the answer will be "no." You need to wait and you need to convince people that you can be honest. Telling obvious lies like "I took that snap" when you downloaded the picture, "it's my article" when you copied it from a Microsoft disc, and "that other Mitrabarun Mitra isn't me", even though he writes exactly like you do and has exactly the same interests as you do won't help you at all.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kww i know that my previous article had a copyright issue. But the user account you're referring is not mine. If you try to convince it by force i will stay i have no idea of that account. It will be a stupid act to make a different account of same name. If my intention was that then i would create a different user account ! So, try to understand that this is not my another account & don't take your decision on that account aspect. Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs)

If you continue down the path you're on, it is exceedingly unlikely that your account will be unblocked after three or even six months. Here's some reasons why:

The behaviour that got you blocked in the first place related to copyright infringement, and you haven't shown that you understand the policies any better.
You're unwilling to take advice from other users. I point to the new heading on this section, when you could've continued the thread in the section above. (Further, you haven't learned to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~).)
You (apparently) created a new account and attempted to edit while blocked.

Now, I say that you apparently created a new account because there's no definitive proof. However, one of the guidelines when considering action by multiple accounts like that is if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The actions of the new account were consistent enough with yours that it's pretty clear that the same person is operating both accounts. Yes, there are some superuser tools that I don't have access to that could pretty well confirm that both accounts were operated by the same person. However, if I put in a request to confirm that two accounts are created, I'd probably get a reply that they would not run the confirmation because the behaviour evidence was sufficient.

This is not Kww's first rodeo, nor is it mine. I can't speak for Kww, but from my perspective, you're better off to admit that you did try to use to accounts, but now you know better and won't do it again, rather than to keep trying to claim the account isn't yours. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to C.Fred

Why i would do that when i know that it will extend my block ???

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to request admins to kindly unblock my account as it's almost more than a month Mitrabarun (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As below. Kuru (talk) 02:59, 7 November 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.

You were advised to wait a minimum of 3 months (which was being generous, as WP:OFFER is usually 6 months) and then submit a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request. You've failed miserably on both counts. I would urge you to rescind the request, as it's likely to lead to removal of your access to this talkpage for at least 3 months ES &L 21:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..and you may not remove declined unblock requests while you're still blocked ES &L 16:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I adhere all Wikipedia standards and will follow it in the near future, so i would like to request administrators to kindly review by unblock request. Thank you! Mitrabarun (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The obvious falsehood below is sufficient reason not to believe you. You made it quite clear on your now-deleted user page that you identify yourself as Mitrabarun Mitra. To pretend now that somehow there is a coincidence of name and that you are not the Mitrabarun Mitra you established yourself as, but rather some other Mitrabarun, defies credibility. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:10, 17 February 2014 (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.

What reason do we have to believe that you are being truthful?—Kww(talk) 18:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww Thank you for replying. I know it will be to tough to convince you but I want to say just one thing that if you find me violating rules in the near future then you would block me permanently across all Wikipedia services & I won't request you again to unblock. Hope you will understand. Thank you. (Mitrabarun (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Here's one thing that would help: can you give a specific example of an edit you would make to an article, if you were unblocked? What article would you change, what text would you add or change, and what reliable source or sources would you cite to support the change? It's okay if you take some time to respond, since you may need to look through some articles to get a detailed-enough idea. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: C.Fred

Thank you C.Fred for replying. Sorry for the late reply. C.Fred I would first like to update the article Jan Lokpal Bill. I will edit line number 10 from the top. And also I'm providing a reliable source i.e Arvind Kejriwal resigns as Delhi Chief Minister^[1] & also few more things about Jan Lokpal Bill^[2] which will be discussed later on. —Mitrabarun (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/delhi-assembly-live-aap-jan-lokpal-bill-arvind-kejriwal-resignation/". The Indian Express. Retrieved 16 February 2014. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/Jan-Lokpal-Bill-and-full-statehood-for-Delhi". http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/. Retrieved 16 February 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= and |title= (help)

Sorry, your edit is not clear. Line 10 is a spacer/blank line. I see the mention of Kejriwal on line 13. How exactly would you change the text? Would you just change the leader's name? —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i would like to omit this line " As of January 2014, the Delhi State Government led by CM Arvind Kejriwal is preparing to adopt the Jan Lokpal Bill." as the leader has resigned from the CM post. Is it okay to omit it ? —(Mitrabarun (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Based on the Indian Express article, I think it would be better to update the status of the bill (that its tabling has been blocked and Kejriwal has resigned as CM). —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else you want to ask me C.Fred? —Mitrabarun (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why C.Fred thinks this is relevant to the issue of your lying about sources, copyrights, and identities.—Kww(talk) 13:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww What else you think sir I'm lying. I declared in the conversation earlier that I admit my mistakes. Sir i just now wan't to short this matter with your help. Should I expect your cooperation ? —Mitrabarun (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see any reason to unblock you. You've promised that you will be better, but you haven't provided any explanation for why this promise is credible. Your creation of the MitrabarunMitra account, which you have never admitted was you, still casts serious doubt upon your credibility.—Kww(talk) 17:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will again say Kww it is not my account. Better you provide sufficient proof before arguing again. As now you are challenging my dignity --Mitrabarun (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've challenged your own dignity; any admin can see the proof, and since you yourself wrote it, with this account, it can be assumed you remember it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--jpgordon I wan't to see what I have written. As canvassing can easily made. I want to see it by own. --Mitrabarun (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I'll just excerpt the first sentence:

Deleted revision of User:Mitrabarun (as of 1 October 2013, at 06:49) by Mitrabarun:
- Mitrabarun Mitra a Software Engineer, Web Developer. Graduate of NIIT with a Bachelor's Degree in Software Engineering.

I imagine this should suffice. Or do I also need to show you the links you included to Mitrabarun Mitra's Twitter account, or the link to Mitrabarun Mitra's Facebook page, or Mitrabarun Mitra's blogspot page? Or his Linkedin page? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I have written this on my this page which I later removed it from this page only. You can check my log of this page. Still . Does it has been done through same IP address, are the MAC address same ? Besides I'm asking this because your are asking to admit this is my account. In Short it is not my account & I request all the admin who are involved in this matter try to judge unbiased and also I can see that my unblock request has been declined. I'm accepting all the thing which I have done by Mistake but again won't accept the things which I have not done.--Mitrabarun (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, Just came to know that the username MitrabarunMitra was created by one of my rivals. I was very shocked to know this, as I was denying that it wasn't my account but now came to know that it was being created to show that "I evaded the block". So, I kindly request respected admins to suggest me what to do now as these usernames are representing my real world names. Please help me. Mitrabarun (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's pretty clear from the history of this talk page that you've known about the other account for the past seven months. As a result, the "Just came to know" excuse doesn't fly. As for the other account: if you really have evidence that it was created by a rival, you should submit that via email to the Volunteer Response Team and not air it in open discusison. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2014 (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.

Do you have any proof of this claim? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 18:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Yes.--Mitrabarun (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you share it with us? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the logs.--Mitrabarun (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"12:07, 5 October 2013 User account MitrabarunMitra (talk | contribs) was created" That is the extent of the logs. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 18:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that and User:Kww blocking User:MitrabarunMitra. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 18:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What else is needed? --Mitrabarun (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So your evidence is that the admin who blocked you and would be keeping an eye on you blocked an alleged puppet. {ping|Kww}, can you help me here? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 18:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get you \(·_·\) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs)
What? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 19:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking for Origamite--Mitrabarun (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a very awful situation that the evidence which I have gotten got misplaced :( I tried to find it every where but didn't found it look like I have to accept which I have not done as I'm unable to produce any evidence. So please let me know what should I have to do to remove my real names from the account??? Mitrabarun (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Origamite is asking (above) for Kww to chip in, because you have provided no evidence for the alleged impersonation. You simply say "check the logs"; when the logs show nothing other than the other account being created and blocked, you claim that this should be sufficient evidence. It's not. The evidence that does exist is clear that you are, in fact, one and the same person: the series of coincidences for it to be otherwise is perhaps not impossible, but highly implausible. As for courtsey vanishing, it is, as a rule, only extened to users in good standing, which you are not. (In addition, your repeated comments that you don't understand people, or that they are not being clear, are concerning, as the comments they are in response to are quite clear, at least to me.)

I'm sorry, but in the situation here, the only plausible intrepreation of events is that you were blocked for repeated copyright violations; when you failed to convince multiple admins (or myself, looking things over now) that you can understand how Wikipedia's copyright rules work well enough for you to be trusted to follow them and were, thus, not unblocked, you created another account in an attempt to get around your block and were caught. You then proceeded to claim that somehow this person who was just like you and edited in the same fashion as you, wasn't you but was someone else - and when that was (rightfully) not considered plausible, you are now claiming that it was maliciously created by a rival, but the evidence has been "misplaced".

The short version is that your claims that the sockpuppet account is not you have not been plausible, and have become even less plausible; and that you still have not shown sufficent signs of understanding copyright on Wikipedia for the original block to be lifted anytime in the near future. I would strongly suggest that you take the standard offer - spend six months not editing the English Wikipedia. Work on other Wikipedia projects, work on learning how copyright works, and work on polishing your skills in English (Wikimedia Commons can help with that; so could WikiData, perhaps). After six months have passed, you can then request unblocking, and point to your contributions on other Wikipedias as evidence that you can be a valuable and trouble-free contributor to the community. I must caution you, though, that the alternative - continuing to request unblocks and make implausible claims without evidence to explain them regarding the sock account, you are likely to find your talk page access revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 11 May 2014 (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.

The Bushranger I don't want to make any contribution to Wikipedia just want to know whether is possible to rename my user account as this represents my real world name. The urgent request is to remove both my personal name i.e. "Mitrabarun" & "MitrabarunMitra" from your database. Is to possible by you The Bushranger Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger already answered that question: "As for courtsey vanishing, it is, as a rule, only extened to users in good standing, which you are not."

So the direct answer is, no, your account will not be renamed, you're just going to have to deal with those names being in the logs. You should have thought of that before using your "real world name" as your Wikipedia account name. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

→Okay remove or rename of this account will take place after 6 months ??? And why I have to wait for 6 months & you can easily unblock me and why I am requesting this because I will only rename my account using Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple. I think their should be no problem in doing this from your side C.Fred and regarding editing I'am not at all interested in editing or contributing as it's to much problematic. --Mitrabarun (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming your account is completely separate from unblocking. As was noted, your account will not be renamed while it is blocked.

Your requests to be unblocked have been declined. At this point, I would say it is unlikely that there is any administrator willing to unblock you—and it is extremely unlikely that you will be unblocked only for the purpose of renaming your account. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to get it--we will not unblock you or change your name. We have no good reason to. Also, Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple will not change your username in the logs, which means your name will still be all over any page you edited. Perhaps you should have thought of that before creating an account with your full name. Please stop ruining your chances of unblock. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 17:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred & Origamite the main point is why I have to wait for 6 months ? Second let be in the logs. I just wan't to rename my name visibility in this talk pages & also the other deceptive account, let it be in the logs no problem with that to me. Hope I have explained in details. This much cooperation is expected from you side.Thank you!--Mitrabarun (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody believes that the other account was anyone but you, Mitrabarun. No one. Continuing to write falsehoods makes me feel far less inclined to do anything to help.—Kww(talk) 04:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me simplify this. You are blocked. If you are blocked you may not change your username After six months you can ask for unblock, after which you can change your name. Your name will only be changed on your talk page--and contributions, signatures and other comments will still have your name in them. Any more questions? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 04:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why I have to wait for 6 months I have already waited for 3 months again you are saying to wait for 6 months why ?

Because that's the standard time to wait. Please read WP:STANDARDOFFER, which Bushranger also linked to up there. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 05:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is going to happen in six months if you continue to lie, Mitrabarun. That's the thing you seem to have the hardest time grasping here, so I will be very blunt. No one believes you. Everyone reviewing this has come to the conclusion that you are lying. The more that you lie to us, the less we want to help. Every time you lie, it means it will at least take longer to get unblocked and makes it more and more likely that you will never be unblocked. At this point, I can't imagine why anyone would unblock you.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All this is happening because of you Kww if you have cooperated that time. This would never happen. And what the hell I'm lying ? I have clearly mentioned all the things still you are not satisfied. And one day you will face this situation for sure.--Mitrabarun (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, blaming him for your sock puppet is getting old. Cooperate with what? The lie? And what have you clearly mentioned? User:MitrabarunMitra was brought up on this page, so he blocked them. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origamite Being admin your protecting your co-admin its good thing but you should first go through what I'm trying to say. I'm blaming him because if he would wish he could block me for few days instead he blocked me indefinitely. Was that justified ? And I have clearly mentioned that I'was not aware of copyright that time & Regarding the account, it was created by my rival, I lost the proof which is my bad luck.--Mitrabarun (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it must be great to be an admin. If I pass RfA in 4,400 edits I'll let you know. Block evasion and copyright typically give an indef block, especially for those with multiple previous blocks. As for ignorance of copyright, WP:COMPETENCE is required. Just give up on the rival excuse already. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 11:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you had a commons block? Give up and stop bothering us, please. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 11:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origamite I have other works instead of bothering you people. I know you're arrogant fellows. I'm writing this must because I'm having an real name attached with account. I know you people hide your identity and let it be, I know everyone is not able to face their challenge with their own identity. Wikipedia is voluntary based that's why I have to contact you. So watch with your words.--Mitrabarun (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over time, Risker has seen fit to do things that I'm not comfortable doing in situations like this, so I'm pinging her.—Kww(talk) 22:09, 11 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

As Per requests from Honourable Admins I spent 6 Month in learning Wikipedia with its community guidelines and will follow the rules below, if I found violating rules administrators can block me indefinitely again. So I understand: • Will not be reckless • We Know my audience • Will not infringe copyright • Will Cite articles/contents • Will definitely Avoid shameless self-promotion • Will Share My expertise, but don't argue from authority • Will Write neutrally and with due weight ——Mitrabarun

  Mitrabarun (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

From the above, I gather that you are requesting an unblock to edit, as opposed just to change your username. However, if you're only interested in changing your username, then you should make that clear in your next unblock request. Anyway, I have concerns in regard to your language competence, and in this context, I think the Simple English Wikipedia could be more suitable. PhilKnight (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2014 (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.

What about your abuse of multiple accounts and block evasion? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--jpgordon Thanks for replying. It will never every happen again, If it happens you can permanently block me. --Mitrabarun

So are you finally admitting that you have been lying about User:MitrabarunMitra?—Kww(talk) 19:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww I have no other choice as I'm not having any evidence to prove. So I have to admit. No more arguments in this. --Mitrabarun

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).

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

Request reason:

PhilKnight I don't want to change my name now. Quick Question - Is it possible to remove this account MitrabarunMitra ? And regarding my language I'm very clear with it. By the way you may do the needful -Many Thanks! --Mitrabarun 05:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Mitrabarun 05:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 16 November 2014 (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.

Kww Hi, Thanks for responding what I have to do to unblock ? Please guide -Many Thanks!

I don't think there is any way for you to become unblocked.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Think your making it personal now Kww & Why so ? if you or any one else can unblock -Many Thanks!

Unblock Request

{{unblock|Unblock Request Please go through above -Many Thanks! Mitrabarun 15:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

PhilKnight (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely gem to be considered if Mitrabarun ever requests unblocking

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww&diff=634338003&oldid=634215055 —Kww(talk) 11:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/delhi-assembly-live-aap-jan-lokpal-bill-arvind-kejriwal-resignation/". The Indian Express. Retrieved 16 February 2014. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)

[2] "http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/Jan-Lokpal-Bill-and-full-statehood-for-Delhi". http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/. Retrieved 16 February 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= and |title= (help)

[1]

[2]