User talk:AUMSat

||ॐ||

Keep a track of my contributions.

My contributions

AUMSat, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AUMSat! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 03:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have questioned. Not attacked. If you consider a question an attack, please see a good doctor. This is not an attack, but an advice. ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an organized bias on purpose, you all might have to go to jail at some point. Beware. ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark above appears to be a legal threat. If you don't retract it, there's a risk that you'll be banned from editing Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Your remark above appears to be a legal threat" how? I have advised. Did I say, I will file a legal complain? I guess you are being paranoid. ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There kind of is. For one thing, only people with an internet connection can edit. More at Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There kind of is. " then we all must work and address all biases. I know the task may be difficult, but it is not impossible. ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:AUMSat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Meters (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prove I have attacked. I have not so far attacked anyone. If you threaten me a block or block me without me having attacked then Wikipedia may eventually lose its value due to such unproven blocks. ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark these words today. If you block me without proving I have attacked, some day your fate may be like one of these Wrongful executions? It is the bad practice that you habituated in life, slowly actually leading to your death? Getting accustomed to loose dietary habits, loose judgments leads people to an actual death experience? What are you today? A healthy one with the habits? ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I see any more baseless complaints against another editor, you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find what happen? How baseless? ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink to ANI discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is just nonsense. I have given an advice. Kindly explain how was there any violation? Regardless what may be wikipedia's policies, laws are always about it. If you all lobby with criminal intention, then probably you all end up in jail. It is as simple as that. So, I advised as a friend. There are no clear words of threat. I hope you explain me which guideline violated and how. If you don't I am building this case study. And BTW going by records places of punishment are not just on earth. They are even on other abodes. So, be careful. An advice is not a threat. I have not written, I will put you in jail etc. Come on, grow up. ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Your entire tenure here has been composed of complaints, attacks on other editors, argumentativeness, and pseudo legal threats. You are clearly not suited to collaborating in a collaborative environment. Wow. Accusing the entire community of criminal intention in your unblock request and saying we will all be punished in this life if not the next, to put it kindly, is bizarre. Please reread the GAB. It will tell you that blaming others without addressing the behavior that led to your blocking-- describing what you did, and what you will do to avoid further blocking-- is a sure way to not only not be unblocked, but to lose the ability to edit your talk page. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

"Accusing the entire community of criminal intention" don't act being paranoid. Prove it. I have been carefully using words like "If" etc. If I feel it strange, it is my duty to bring it to a larger community? Is WP:GF a gimmick here? Don't you see a possibility of lie being hidden when the concerned editor collapsed the discussion? Where questions asked to the concerned editor? If not, why not? ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You clearly aren't going to compose an actionable unblock request any time soon, so I am revoking your talkpage access. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:24, 10 August 2019 (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.