User talk:Ranjith92

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:41, 13 February 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).

Ranjith92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

do not know copyrights i will not repeat sorry

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. TN X Man 14:47, 15 February 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.

To be unblocked, you will need to show you understand why you have been blocked, e.g. describe to us what you understand of our policy and why we should trust that you will not repeat your actions. You did not know about copyright, and that's a reasonable explanation for your initial actions, but why did you ignore all the warnings sent to you and kept posting copyrighted material regardless, even posting a file for a second time after it had been deleted? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, can you explain this edit? Incivility is not acceptable on Wikipedia. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:20, 15 February 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).

Ranjith92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

copyright violation i understand the procedures and will not violate the copyright policy sorry sir so remove my block please

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: no response in > 3 days. The guide to appealing blocks is clear that an unblock request must address all concerns. A new unblock request may be made, provided it addresses all concerns noted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 24 February 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.

Ranjith92, please stop removing the block notification and related messages - you must not remove them while the block is still active. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked a question about civility, which although not necessarily noted in the block log, it also one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. That type of reaction is inappropriate, so an explanation of that and how you'll move forward is important (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say that you were warned multiple times about violating copyrights, and you have ignored the warnings given to you. Because of that, this block is appropriate. Indefinitely blocked editors are rarely unblocked - especially if they have done nothing constructive. --B music ian 03:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Bmusician, indefinitely blocked editors are often unblocked, if they can convince a reviewing admin that their problematic behaviour will not recur - "indefinite" does not mean "infinite", but just means the blocking admin has not set a specific time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will recommend the standard offer to this indefinitely blocked user. --B music ian 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not believe the standard offer is applicable here, as it is not the way we treat new users on their first block. This user has only been here a few weeks and has made only a small number of edits, and in a spirit of assuming good faith, I am happy to accept that their actions were due to unfamiliarity with the way Wikipedia works. I would recommend unblocking once they address their problematic behaviour - we have a commitment to respect copyright now, so the ~~personal attack~~ incivility is the only remaining issue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tanjith92, your unblock request cannot be considered, let alone granted, until you address the incivility issue mentioned above once or twice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 23 February 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).

Ranjith92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i read all the polices of wikipedia and will not violate here after so please remove my block or you administrators deactivate my account so others from this ip adress can use wikipedia

Decline reason:

Due to block evasion, as evidenced below. Max Semenik (talk) 12:33, 27 February 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.

Sockpuppeting

Note that this user created a block-evading sockpuppet account User:Ranjith28 immediately after being blocked, on 13 February, was editing with it even while asking for an unblock here, and resumed making serial copyright-violating uploads with it today.

Ranjith, this is not the way to get unblocked, ever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueMario1016 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]