User talk:Bandagharka

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

Use english

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.

You should use english on the english wikipedia. When you try to transliterate languages without using a standard method like you did here it's basically unreadable. Furthermore you should use english so editors who don't understand the language you are transliterating can read it and understand the discussion. Also don't assume you know what other editors' background is or make appeals on religous grounds. Wikipedia serves the public record, not the sensibilities of its editors--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Regards, --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats

This is not permitted. If you ever threaten someone with court action again you will be indefinately blocked see WP:NLT Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 14:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo for Ram Rahim Singh?

Greetings, I note that you have some interest in Ram Rahim Singh; do you know where we may be able to acquire a public-domain photograph of him to illustrate his bio article? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

See [1] [2]. Materialscientist (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] [4] (search for CBI also observed that). Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

No opportunity for hearing/no reason

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. TN X Man 13:27, 8 April 2011 (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.

Ram Rahim Singh and Dera Sacha Sauda

Greetings, from what I have seen of your edits, you are not editing with neutrality. I have not personally seen any vandalising edits about "crap" from Profitoftruth, but feel free to point them out to me if you have concerns. What I have seen is Profitoftruth and others fixing citations, adding more cited material, and removing sectarian puffery. Likewise, I see you reverting citation cleanup, inserting pro-DSS praise, removing any criticised info despite it being footnoted, and adding extremely confusing and un-encyclopedic talk of "criminal conspiracies", "certain people", etc. Dancing around issues, "some people" instead of "the Sikh community" is not neutrality, it is being coy. Fundamentally, I have not seen from you any tendency to support core Wikipedia principles of neutrality and footnoting. If you have material that is of equal reputability to the sources criticising DSS and RRS, bring it up on the Talk page and if it is indeed a good source it can be added as part of the "full story" showing multiple perspectives. Until you display proper neutrality, you can't expect neutral editors to sympathise with you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to use email for Wikipedia work; please instead just use my Talk page. Nothing is so secret that it can't just be posted there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]