User talk:Alpha2211

August 2020

Your recent edits to Talk:2020 Delhi riots could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 12:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking only questions about the article that editors never answered. As a new user i did not the policies and editors misused their long term association with wikipedia to block me. Alpha2211 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My question was why article is blaming only hindus specifically where there are video evidences of direct involvement of a muslim leader. Editors continuously ignored my question. I believed wikipedia is fair place, if new users are blocked for asking questions, that will make it very strict place. Focus should be to answer the question than to highlight policy violation of a new user. Alpha2211 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--RegentsPark (comment) 12:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also read WP:MEATPUPPET threatening to enlist help of wiki is against the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also (if you carry out your threat) wp:spa may be invoked in any report.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha2211, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Alpha2211! 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 Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

drop it

See WP:JUSTDROPIT and wp:consensus. You have said what you have to say, saying it 15 more times will not wp:bludgeon us into submission. I suggest you move on to other topics.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note this [[1]] violates both wp:blp and wp:crime, one more comment like that and I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the violation of wp:npa, stop now!Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

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 ~~~~}}.

Salvio

20:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking only questions about the article that editors never answered. As a new user i did not know the policies and editors misused their long term association with wikipedia to block me.

My question was why article is blaming only hindus specifically where there are video evidences of direct involvement of a muslim leader. Editors continuously ignored my question. I believed wikipedia is fair place, if new users are blocked for asking questions, that will make it very strict place. Focus should be to answer the question than to highlight policy violation of a new user. Alpha2211 (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2020 (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).

Alpha2211 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Salvio 4:58 pm, Today (UTC−4) I was asking only questions about the article that editors never answered. As a new user i did not know the policies and editors misused their long term association with wikipedia to block me. My question was why article is blaming only hindus specifically where there are video evidences of direct involvement of a muslim leader. Editors continuously ignored my question. I believed wikipedia is fair place, if new users are blocked for asking questions, that will make it very strict place. Focus should be to answer the question than to highlight policy violation of a new user. I have no intention threaten or anything, being new user i didnt know these policies. My intention was only to ask question and make wikipedia article fair Alpha2211 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't addressed the reason for your block. Rather, you're merely repeating the arguments that got you blocked in the first place. RegentsPark (comment) 22:24, 16 August 2020 (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.

Here on this talk page at 12:31, 16 August 2020 you were warned (by me) about a potential policy violation with a link the the policy in question again at 18:39 (different polices and violations, as well as at 18:46).

On the article talk page you were told about policy and how you were violating it as 12:25, 13:07, 15:07, 16:08, by at three users (including me). Again with links to each policy.

You were given plenty of warning, and asked more then once to read policy.

You need to read those polices (now) and explain how you did not breach them, and/or now will breach them again.Slatersteven (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought some real admin will focus on neutrality of content. Honestly never expected @slatersteven and all others here. You guys just saved my 50$ a month donation to wikipedia. No donation for biasedpedia anymore. My friend told me about totally biased articles here when i told him i donate for a good cause. Even now you focus on policies? Really?? Policies were created for fair encyclopedia. Wikipedia is anyway irrelevant now a days, thanks to guys like you. Never unblock me, even i dont want to ever comeback here. Alpha2211 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are there for a fair encyclopedia, because everyone has to obey the same rules. Thus everyone has to meet the same standard, even your opponents. One reason the article is worded the say it is is that the other side also wanted it to "be fair" too. Both sides could not have it fair, because both sides had their own version of what is fair (and many of us might not agree with what you think is "fair" or "true", why does your truth trump ours?). Its why we decided that it was best to rely on uninvolved sources, so as to try and represent the most neutral version of the article we could.

If you wish to leave that is your choice, If you wish to stop giving the Wikipedia foundation $50 a month I am sure it will survive the loss of the $50 you have donated since you have been active. The fact however you have (in essence) said you are not going to promise to obey policy in your fight for the truth tells me your loss will not be a net loss to us.

If you do change your mind and make a good case as to why you should be unblocked please read WP:NOTDUMB. This is my last word here, we tried to help you edit here, we warned you and I have even advised you how to appeal. No one is to blame for your block but you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]