User talk:Arindam30

Image:Gole_Market-Map.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gole_Market-Map.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, I'm Ab207. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Fahadh Faasil have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. External links are for established sites such as IMDb. Masala Mug does not seem to fit such criteria not. Ab207 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Machher Jhol because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Serols (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. --Serols (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Bengali cuisine. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2021 (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).

Arindam30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I added website references as a value add, and without actve knowledege that the reference may look like promotion. I will be careful in future. Kindly unblock me with a warning. Arindam30 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to describe your connection to the website. If you weren't aware how your "value add" was promotional, you shouldn't edit until you do, and you'll need to tell us what edits you wish to make. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2021 (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).

Arindam30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As per question from user 331dot, the mentioned websites has contributions from my side, but completely non-commercial, and from my first-hand experience. There re no-renumerations or advertisements involved. The attempt was just to share the first-hand knowledge (of the website) on the relevant wiki page. I will remain careful and aware of this issue in future. Sorry for the disruption and I will not do the same same in future. Hope to get a unblock frok your side. Arindam30 (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I declined on two bases: one is that "first hand experience" will make any reviewer very nervous, since that's completely not what we do here. But, more relevantly, you say you weren't aware, and you want to be unblocked with a warning. But you received no fewer than four warnings prior to being blocked. Why did you keep duplicating the issue without even a query then? And why should we expect you to now understand, or react properly to future issues, if you couldn't before? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2021 (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).

Arindam30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear User Nosebagbear (talk), you are correct that there were 4 warnings. unfortunately, I was using Wiki after a long gap at that time and failed to notice the notification icons (for warnings) initially. I could realize the consequences only much later when the edit got completely blocked. Hence the request to unblock as now I am fully aware that any edit that is non-compliant to the policy, will immediately block me. Apologies from my side for the inconvenience Arindam30 (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2021 (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.

A different reviewing admin will look at that appeal, given how obvious the system makes messages dropped on your talk page (no fewer than 3 on the day of you being blocked), that is a tough pill to swallow. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]