en User talk:Nalbarian

Archives

September 2021

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.

– Joe (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

– Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 September 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).

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

Request reason:

I checked onto Wikipedia today and discovered that I have been blocked indefinitely. I was taken aback and disheartened. I work as an engineer and live away from home. I started editing Wikipedia as a way to pass the time in my free time. Another reason I edit Wikipedia is that there are very few articles about my native places and people.

Regarding Sockpuppetry: My laptop (formerly TataSky connection, now Jio fiber) and my phone are what I use (Jio connection) for Wikipedia editing. Sometimes I use my office's internet, which is a shared network. I only have one other account (Nalbarian2) that I've already declared. I'm not using any other accounts. Someone in the same network could be behind the suspicious account. I am ready to send all evidence to via email (if required). Paid editing: The majority of the articles are on specific geographical areas. Some of the articles are about prominent people that I thought deserved to be featured. There is no way I can take money from them; in fact, I'll never do that. My upbringing forbade me from doing so. In reality, I am not acquainted with them. If a higher authority from Wikipedia wants to evaluate it, I am willing to send my bank/wallet statement. I may be emotional in this situation, but I'm willing to go to any length to prove it. My editing style: I wrote certain articles because I was inspired by those people's work; nevertheless, this does not imply that I collected money from them. And they're all well-known people. I never publish information without citations (apart from some references I found in offline media or books). I'm seriously shocked, and I'm prepared to prove my innocence. I request that everything be evaluated in accordance with Wikipedia norms. I'd like to be unblocked so that I can continue working on my project. This will come back to bother me if I am still blocked. Nalbarian (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am not privy to the private evidence of undisclosed paid editing, but having spent quite some time looking at your edits, including your deleted contributions, I struggle to believe that you have never engaged in COI editing. In addition, technical evidence appears to indicate that you are in fact connected to Amitsharma1120, and from the little behaviour I can examine, I have no reason to doubt the CU result. Since I do not believe you are being fully transparent with us, I am declining this request. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:08, 16 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.

I was trying to log in from all three IPs (already mentioned in previous reply) and from alternative account: Nalbarian2; I am blocked everywhere. I can't write anywhere. In Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, a good discussion is going on. I don't know, preview is showing that I am good to go. Screenshot taken. I will try to submit. All of my articles were reviewed by one editor (BilledMammal). I don't want to tag him. Someone other editor stood up for me. Some people are adamant in their beliefs. They have their own justifications. I'm not there to defend me. This should be used an useful measurement. I want to comment there for all "possible COI". Any possibilities? I can give genuine reply. Nalbarian (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can only respond in this section. Allow me to prepare my responses to all articles/deleted articles/AFD debates. I don't know about "nonpublic evidence". I respect Joe for his contribution; I'm hoping he'll give me the opportunity to defend myself. Nalbarian (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor BilledMammal has very nicely reviewed the articles created by me. Thanks for his time.

Here's my response to articles marked as "possible COI"-

My reply: This person is known as COVID warrior (as per media). I wanted to write about his plasma donation after learning about his activities through the media. There is no connection between us.

My reply: I was inspired to write an article after reading her books. I only used a few Assamese language references and some information from her book's "about the author" section.

My reply: Assamese photographer who is very well-known. I notice his photographs of many Assam related events on a regular basis. He was in news for his photography. I was inspired to write an article.

My reply: I was watching some of her Logrolling videos one day. For me, it was a completely new sport. Her stories had an impact on me (especially the illnesses she battled).

My reply: A roadside Idli seller. She had made headlines.

My reply: We often listen to this RJ. Thought I should create an article.

My reply: Sahitya Akademi award winner. He had made headlines. Some of the information are from offline media (from Assamese daily). Information not available in the references are not added by me (thos info are added by an IP).

My reply: I am a huge fan of his books. I've collected the video from a Facebook page. That signature image was collected from a friend via e-mail. An article about that writer was already available in Assamese Wikipedia. I've translated few things from there.

Regarding Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nalbarian: That account is not my account. I believe that account has the same IP as mine because I work in a shared network.

Again, I am ready to answer further queries. Thank you. Nalbarian (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: You deny any connection to Amitsharma1120 (talk · contribs)? --Blablubbs (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Blablubbs, please be informed that I have no connection to Amitsharma1120 (talk · contribs). Nalbarian (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blablubbs, thanks for reviewing my request. I finally understand the issue after seeing Amitsharma1120's edits. How will I be able to give you all the information you require (due to the fact that those info will be personal)? Can I e-mail you? I again confirm that I have no connection to Amitsharma1120. Nalbarian (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want to discuss nonpublic information, it is best to appeal to the Arbitration Committee (see the instructions at the top of this section). There is no point emailing me or other admins directly. I didn't review your unblock request because it's only fair to you to have a second opinion, but I will say that I don't find it remotely plausible that you just happened to create these promotional biographies of marginal figures in and amongst your otherwise decent content work, or that you have no connection to Amitsharma1120 (talk · contribs). You are not going to be able to edit again if you aren't honest with us. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi Joe, your point has been well noted. I'm feeling helpless. I'm working on an e-mail explaining why I wrote those articles (including the ones that were deleted) and how I'm not involved in sockpuppetry. I'll send this email to the Arbitration Committee. I really want to get back into editing Wikipedia. The problem, in my opinion, is editing biographies in a variety of fields and regularly editing those biographies. Kindly be informed that my aim was never bad, and I am helpless to prove it. Nalbarian (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

As per my e-mail reply to Arbitration_Committee on 12 Jan 2022, 11:23 Nalbarian (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We (unblock reviewers) do not have access to your private communications with ArbCom. Yamla (talk) 10:50, 30 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

It's been 8 months since I was blocked. I want to start anew. I request to give me a chance. I will abide by all rules and ready to work under seniors. Nalbarian (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. In particular, "I will abide by all rules" is pretty vague and could mean almost anything. You need to be more specific and show that you understand why you were blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 27 May 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.

Proposed deletion of Shyamkanu Mahanta

The article Shyamkanu Mahanta has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No SIGCOV was found. All citations are just passing mentions or press releases only.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 23:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mayur Bora for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mayur Bora is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayur Bora until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shyamkanu Mahanta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shyamkanu Mahanta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyamkanu Mahanta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, (Redacted). Nalbarian (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have again violated Wiki policy. You can't mention anyone's name on basis of assumption. There was clear Admin intervention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumud Das (3rd nomination) which was earlier violated by your confirmed sock Scobserv. Moreover, you have harassed me too much by running a massive sock farm which is already proved here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalbarian/Archive. Pinging blocking admin @Joe Roe:, and other admins @Star Mississippi:, @GeneralNotability: and @Tamzin: (if they are available), with a request to revoke your talk page access. I didn't want this but you seem to keep attacking me as you are creating new socks again which is found on your SPI page. You could have become a good editor, but your personal attacks and sock farming indicates you are WP:NOTNOTHERE anymore. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

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.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #61456

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mayur Bora

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 Mayur Bora, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that has essentially the same content as https://as.wikipedia.org/wiki/ময়ূৰ_বৰা, an article on another Wikimedia Foundation project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

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. _-✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #62420

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if Nalbarian is dead...then WHO WAS UTRS? 🤔 GeneralNotability (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user that said that was Nalbarian himself. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 16:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnatyrannus, do me a favor. Have a look at the name of the blocking checkuser for the account that reported Nalbarian's "death". Then hop on over to Google and look up the old "then who was phone" meme. I'll wait. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 11:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]