User talk:Srimonbanik2007

Hello, Srimonbanik2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Indic script

- Please do not add any Indic script, to any of our India related articles, as you did at Guwahati, and several other articles, as this contravenes WP:NOINDICSCRIPT - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay Why? Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:NOINDICSCRIPT and the seven discussions that it links to - but fundamentally, to stop language-warring, which was far too common in India-related articles until we introduced WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. - Arjayay (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello. Your recent edit to Agartala appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay Ok I can understand. I will take care next time. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bengali Christians, you may be blocked from editing.
It was clearly explained, above, that you should not add people to lists, unless they already have their own article on the English Wikipedia, but you have continued doing so. Please stop doing that and stop trying to promote yourself on Wikipedia - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Tripura, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay Soory, I did it for getting mile stone. I'll take care next time. Please pardon me for now. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay I just wanna add the latest information. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kolkata. - Arjayay (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay Sorry I didn't know about it. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon me Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Agartala, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Arjayay (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sri Krishna Mission School

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sri Krishna Mission School, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JML1148 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022 - again

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Assam. } Arjayay (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kerala. - Arjayay (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay I haven't changed any information. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Delhi. - Arjayay (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for one month for persistent disruptive and tendentious editing despite numerous warnings. You can request unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 14:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen I have only upload a data from government source only. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that. I had been blocked for 1 month only. Then I wouldn't do that. Please forgive a child. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen

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).

Srimonbanik2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I had added information in Delhi page from Government census source.

Decline reason:

One open request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2022 (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.

Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2022 (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).

Srimonbanik2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I only add data from source. I wanna become a Wikipedian like you. That's why I had joined with another username. I can't hold my dreams for a moment. I promise you not to add data from unreliable source. I will only add data from other Wikipedia pages, government sources, reputed sources. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2022 (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.

@Bishonen

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).

Srimonbanik2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you decide to make a donation, I would thank you as an editor, but we editors have nothing to do with soliciting or collecting donations, so that has no bearing on this process. Your statements here do not adequately address the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2022 (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.

Srimonbanik2007, you're supposed to replace the text "your reason here" with your actual reason in the template above. You can do that now; then an uninvolved admin will review your request. To the reviewer: I suppose the user's reason is in the post they make above, directed at me, so I suppose it would be all right to review the request in the shape it's in. Bishonen | tålk 11:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen There are many wrong data in Wikipedia and I goona correct them. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay I'll donate Wikipedia please unblock me. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srimonbanik2007 you appear to be trying to bribe yourself out of trouble, but that is not the way Wikipedia works - I can't unblock you in any case. - Arjayay (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo How to unblock myself? Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007 Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo

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).

Srimonbanik2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I only add data from source. I wanna become a Wikipedian like you. That's why I had joined with another username. I can't hold my dreams for a moment. I promise you not to add data from unreliable source. I will only add data from other Wikipedia pages, government sources, reputed sources. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You just created a sock puppet last week. There's still the standard offer if you can go six months without sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2022 (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.

Can I rejoin Wikipedia with another username?

Can I rejoin Wikipedia with another username? Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. That would be block evasion. You are blocked as a person, not just your account. You must deal with this here. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to get unblocked? I regret for my dids. Give me a second chance and show my edits. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my sock accounts. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't I join Wikipedia after 10 years. Can't you forgive a child of 16 years. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to delete or merge accounts, we can only rename them. Sorry for gravedancing. Kolano123 (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me

I started editing in Wikipedia during Lockdown period. I was still a child at that time. My age was 14. I didn't understand what is disruption at that time. But now I am quite mature. I use to create new account to fix errors in Wikipedia. I'm no longer disruptive now. You see the edits of my sock. Even law forbids kids then why not Wikipedia. Are they above god or law. There are more disruptive editors why they're not blocked? Even they are disrupting for a year. I can give many examples. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had not created any sock account for about a year but my account has not been unblocked. So, I created another account. Even they promised to unblock me after 6 months which I had not shown earlier. I have seen it today. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even among the claimed sock of my account. Some of them are not my sock. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one promised to unblock you. You became eligible to request unblocking after six months. That timer has been reset. What you have done is WP:block evasion. As to other disruptive editors, please read WP:NOTTHEM. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't edited for 1 year Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are human you must show some sympathy for a kid. Wikipedia's policies are not above law or God. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm full confidence I would be unblock. There are many disruptive editors who are still not blocked. I can give example. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a standard offer which I abide but still not unblocked. I hadn't seen that earlier only yesterday. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna talk with @Ponyo through chat or email. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even I can't leave Wikipedia as it needs me. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave this here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007#27 February 2024. Ya gotta stop evading your block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with being "above the law or God"; as a private entity Wikipedia can determine who uses its services, for any reason or even no reason. No one is indispensable to Wikipedia(even Jimmy Wales). We can't help you if you continue to evade your block. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I've abide by not editing for more than 6 months Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow me to create a new account without considering it as sock if you can't unblock Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promise not to make disruptive edits Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You created a sock account as recently as a week ago. That resets the six month timer. You need to stop creating new accounts. We need to see that you can abide by guidelines and instructions. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What! Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because some people were making disruptive edits in 2024 Indian general election in Kerala Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To stop them Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to protect them from such people? Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any faster way to get unblocked Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me are the latest edits of my sock are disruptive? Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the urgency? It doesn't matter that you had a good motivation for your edits. Someone else will eventually detect the inappropriate edits you see. No one is indispensable to Wikipedia. Your actions tell us that you are willing to disregard instructions and policies when you find them inconvenient. Are you familiar with the expression "actions speak louder than words"? You will need to find a different hobby for the next six months. Maybe volunteer doing good work for your church, read some books, anything else other than attempt to edit Wikipedia. Every sock account you create reduces the chances you will be unblocked. You should withdraw your request and not attempt to edit or create accounts again until the end of August when you should request unblock under this account. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you are just wasting our time here. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who improved the past election pages of India? Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's urgent as I'm free till May then I would be busy. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible for admins to look after the edits. Some of the sock aren't even my sock. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There're some falsely accused sock such as Vajpayee etc. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not stop if you don't unblock. I'll keep on emailing. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many disruptive editors who are still not blocked for example @Maphumor etc.Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would do the same if you were at my place. Should not anyone be given second chance? Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One @Arjayay told in SPI that my intention is not bad Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna talk with @Arjayay and @Ponyo Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no better editor than me for Indian politics. I improved all recent election pages Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please rediscuss the matter with a Check User Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One will eventually see this. If you're so indispensable to Wikipedia then you should have thought about that before getting blocked. Actions have consequences. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was immature at the time of block. I was a school boy my age was 14. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The block was only a year and a half ago. From your actions here it appears not much has changed since then as you just said you will continue to disregard policies and instructions because you find it inconvenient. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my recent edits are they bad Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant as you shouldn't be making any edits at all, you are banned. I have no other comment especially since you have no intention of abiding by instructions and policies. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than a thousand people in Wikipedia who are editing in Wikipedia even after block after creating another account with another IP for a year. Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I abide to follow Wikipedia policies by heart Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider Srimonbanik2007 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2024 (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).

Srimonbanik2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I had joined Wikipedia 3 years back when my age was 14 years during lockdown period. I had joined Wikipedia to make some edits because I fade up with lockdown. At that time I wasn't so mature and understood the term vandalism, sock and disruptive edit etc. I wasn't aware about Wikipedia policies. How much you can expect from a kid? I had been blocked for 1 month first and later expended to infinity without any reason. I had been promised to get unblocked if I make 0 edits for 6 years (though I hadn't seen that) and I hadn't done any edit for 1 years as whole as I was busy in studies. Then also I haven't been unblocked. After 2 year I started editing in Wikipedia. This time I am aware about vandalism. But soon after few months or days are blocked for sock. My only intention this time not to add any unsourced data but to make articles pretty and fix errors. You can see the recent edits of my sock. None of my recent edits are bad. I no longer practice vandalism. Even law forgives a child. Is Wikipedia above law or god? Now, my age is 17. I want to be your companion. Please give a second chance and see my edits. If you find my edits against Wikipedia then reblock me and I will not make any account for 20 years if you found them disruptive. Everyone deserve a second chance. I felt regret for my childish behaviour and disruptive I mad few years back.

Decline reason:

You haven't the slightest intention of abiding by Wikipedia's policies, as clearly demonstrated by your actions and your comments here. Yamla (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2024 (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.

February 2024

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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]