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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 08:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Furthermore, can you explain this edit? Incivility is not acceptable on Wikipedia. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I will recommend the standard offer to this indefinitely blocked user. -- B  music  ian  12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to 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 deckertalk to me 17:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)