I have edited the Prince Paras of Nepal page extensively and worked as far as possible to provide the picture within the diameter of 'Acceptability'. As we all know there is a lot of defamation going on in Nepal and everyone is trying to put down someone or the other. Similar seemed to be the case against the Wiki Page of Prince Paras.
Please do not write more than you can provide from your sources...specially when you are alleging someone for Killing please provide accurate sources. The lines such as 'proofs were bought' do not sound good until and unless very professional and credible sources are provided.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
09:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on José Ramón Carabante requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
The Thing //
Talk //
Contribs
07:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 01:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Baburam Bhattarai, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. instead of contributing to the talk, you have only reverted and broken WP:3RR. by now i am sure you know nothing about the political situation in nepal. so be wise and stop!
HunterSilver (
talk)
22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Baburam Bhattarai. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Sudo
Ghost
05:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Baburam Bhattarai shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sudo Ghost 05:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear SudoGhost, I think you have to leave out your poor liking for Baburam. I have replied to you and HunterSilver (probably one and the same person) over in the talk page of Baburam Bhattarai:
I think both SudoGhost and HunterSilver are one and the same person because HunterSilver just popped up once referenced point regarding Baburam Bhattarai being an ex-terrorist came up and SudoGhost started deleting the reference made to Baburam Bhattari being an ex-terrorist. This is a known fact that Baburam Bhattari, Pushpa Dahal and the clan were branded as terrorists and had interpol notices served against them. I have put two well sourced links (one from a Nepali National newspaper and another from an international website regarding this). Any further attempt by SudoGhost and HunterSilver to modify the refereced point will lead to them being served notice. You have to take your personal liking for a person outside Wikipedia. We very well know that the sons and daughters of Baburam and Prachanda are studying in USA and elsewhere. So are you one of them? It's amazing that the articles don't talk about the criminal background of Baburam. He might be a PM but PMs of many countries have criminal backgrounds. - Jack of All, Master of None
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
17:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Slp1 (
talk)
18:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Hello, "Jack". I noticed your question at the help desk, and I understand your frustration. I'm sorry to have to tell you that SudoGhost and HunterSilver are almost certainly correct. It's extremely unlikely that the two accounts are the same person, by the way. I'm going to post a WikiLeaks cable link to the article talk page, that will probably interest you. I don't know what our policy is about citing WikiLeaks documents, but if you read the cable, it says that the redcorner notice against Baburam was withdrawn, at one point, at least.
Sorry you got blocked, by the way. There are a lot of rules here that can trip someone up. Don't take it personally, that you tripped up on the 3RR one. Cheers, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 19:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. — Kww( talk) 20:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Jack of All, Master of None ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dear Kww, with my humble and due respect to your admin status, did you even see the reason why SudoGhost is making me do this? He is repeatedly playing all the tricks and modifying the articles as he pleases along with friend. Please read "Terrorist Background and InterPol Red Corner Notice" on the [Baburam Bhattarai] page. I am providing factually correct information and I have given correct information backed by sources from newspapers and wikileaks. He did not like this and removed all the sources and everything I put there. So I placed a 'neutrality-disputed tag' on the concerned issue and he removed the 'neutrality-tag'. He just wants to be the judge and he is not letting a third party discuss on this issue. He is getting me banned and warned. I am here to provide factually correct information and everyone is supporting the other person who is somehow obsessed with not letting the article on Baburam be factually correct.
He is hell bent on getting this information removed. I don't know why. There are no accusations or name calling in the above point. This is just a fact sourced from newspapers. I am a student of Nepal and South Asian politics and I know what I am talking about. If wikipedia is here to provide one side of the story, then it is completely shameful. You all ban people without knowing what is the reason. This is not justice! I am here to provide with all correct information so that everyone gets a balanced story about everything. I stand for a propaganda free world where everyone uses the power and knowledge of everyone. If I am unblocked then it will be a victory of justice and neutrality over propaganda ridden world. Jack of All, Master of None ( talk) 20:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A combination of NOTTHEM and a general battleground mentality here that I don't like seeing in unblock requests. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 21:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
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.
Please understand that my advice to remove your unblock request was given before the request was declined. You need to be aware that removing declined requests is not allowed as long as your block is current. Again, you need to understand the advice at WP:GAB. I do not know if unblocking this account will ever happen, but it certainly will not happen if your request does not make clear that you understand the issue that resulted in the block and how to avoid the issue in the future. Tide rolls 21:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Jack of All, Master of None ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Sir/Ma'ams, I have read NOTTHEM mentioned by The Blade of Northern Lights. Any reasoning to protest the block is to be provided once the block is lifted. I understand that I should not have edited the article (or say - had an editwar) concerned just after my auto-block was lifted. I red-edited the concerned page just once after my auto-block was lifted. I never went for an edit war once that auto-block was lifted today. Sir/ Ma'am, please see the concerned article in this regard. I sincerely apologise for what happened and will do my best to make sure that this is not repeated in the future. Kindly advise if there are any further steps I need to take in order to get the block to be lifted. Kindly advise at the earliest, as I am very perturbed by this issue.
-- Jack of All, Master of None ( talk) 21:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Per agreement. Be aware that your edits are being monitored by multiple admins at this point, and any attempt to reinclude that material without consensus will lead to an immediate block— Kww( talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19519379_ITM - http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/01/01/top-stories/Parties-vow-to-end-trust-deficit/3609/ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3246066.stm Please provide your summary of the above news articles. Can you? Baburam Bhattarai did have a criminal history (justified or unjustified) and you are just not allowing anyone to post anything that talks about his criminal past. It can be historically seen from all your edits in that article that you have edited everything that shed light on his 'underground' days.
Hi everyone, I would love if anyone can write a brief summary - in 1 or 2 sentence - regarding the historical background of Baburam Bhattarai that can be put up on his wikipedia page. We need to write based on these articles:
- http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19519379_ITM - http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/01/01/top-stories/Parties-vow-to-end-trust-deficit/3609/ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3246066.stm
My brief summary is: "In 2003, Baburam Bhattarai along with 14 other persons had Interpol red corner notices issued against them for crimes such as murder and terrorism." Do you all think this summary provides the accurate information as per above sourced articles?
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
19:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Jack of All, Master of None ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Oh he is calling me anti-Maoist. Which is like calling someone anti-terrorist in Nepal and India. I gladly accept it. But he and SudoGhost are deleting posts (with credible sources) that I make...just see the discussion above. So you are cutting my hands. Not the root of the problem. He accepts my point of view though but keeps deleting my posts with his colleague SudoGhost. They are doing the same to everyone's posts. Even Wiki admins posts. So I said, thank you and I would make sure (by going to admins of Wikipedia) that their ways of manipulating wikipedia are not accepted. What's wrong with that? You think it's threatening? Infact they are deleting my sourced posts and they keep getting me blocked with unreasonable complaints and have been threatening me for a long time now...like the pro-maoists do to real people in real life. I have no agenda on wikpipedia like they do...just bring correct info on wikipedia. I don't wish him a nice day ahead. Freedom of speech and logical reasoning is accepted I hope. ::Boing!@ 20:23, of course I stand by my statement. Why anyone else without a particular agenda, would delete posts which are taken right out newspapers and BBC and put on Wikipedia as they are. Someone who is either very versatile or has a deep-rooted interest to make sure that there is no free flow of information? He called me names by calling me 'anti-maoist'. You didn't ban him? I am feeling so bad that he called me names. What action did you take against him? You are not even aware of what the actual situation and you are acting in a biased manner. So I am made to believe you are with them as well? :::Hahaha. SudoGhost and HunterSilver are acting victims and the police here. They come here, deleted posts, get others blocked. And some of the WikiAdmins are judging the case and blocking innocent people without having any clue what-so-ever of what-the-heck in the world is going on. Beautiful world! Hahahaha. I am going nuts. :) -- Jack of All, Master of None ( talk) 20:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In view of your assurances before the last unblock followed by this shortly after it, I do not think that unblocking you, or restoring your talk page access, would be helpful to the project. Any further unblock request should be made via the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. JohnCD ( talk) 20:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
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 have edited the Prince Paras of Nepal page extensively and worked as far as possible to provide the picture within the diameter of 'Acceptability'. As we all know there is a lot of defamation going on in Nepal and everyone is trying to put down someone or the other. Similar seemed to be the case against the Wiki Page of Prince Paras.
Please do not write more than you can provide from your sources...specially when you are alleging someone for Killing please provide accurate sources. The lines such as 'proofs were bought' do not sound good until and unless very professional and credible sources are provided.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
09:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on José Ramón Carabante requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
The Thing //
Talk //
Contribs
07:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 01:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Baburam Bhattarai, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. instead of contributing to the talk, you have only reverted and broken WP:3RR. by now i am sure you know nothing about the political situation in nepal. so be wise and stop!
HunterSilver (
talk)
22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Baburam Bhattarai. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Sudo
Ghost
05:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Baburam Bhattarai shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sudo Ghost 05:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear SudoGhost, I think you have to leave out your poor liking for Baburam. I have replied to you and HunterSilver (probably one and the same person) over in the talk page of Baburam Bhattarai:
I think both SudoGhost and HunterSilver are one and the same person because HunterSilver just popped up once referenced point regarding Baburam Bhattarai being an ex-terrorist came up and SudoGhost started deleting the reference made to Baburam Bhattari being an ex-terrorist. This is a known fact that Baburam Bhattari, Pushpa Dahal and the clan were branded as terrorists and had interpol notices served against them. I have put two well sourced links (one from a Nepali National newspaper and another from an international website regarding this). Any further attempt by SudoGhost and HunterSilver to modify the refereced point will lead to them being served notice. You have to take your personal liking for a person outside Wikipedia. We very well know that the sons and daughters of Baburam and Prachanda are studying in USA and elsewhere. So are you one of them? It's amazing that the articles don't talk about the criminal background of Baburam. He might be a PM but PMs of many countries have criminal backgrounds. - Jack of All, Master of None
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
17:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Slp1 (
talk)
18:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Hello, "Jack". I noticed your question at the help desk, and I understand your frustration. I'm sorry to have to tell you that SudoGhost and HunterSilver are almost certainly correct. It's extremely unlikely that the two accounts are the same person, by the way. I'm going to post a WikiLeaks cable link to the article talk page, that will probably interest you. I don't know what our policy is about citing WikiLeaks documents, but if you read the cable, it says that the redcorner notice against Baburam was withdrawn, at one point, at least.
Sorry you got blocked, by the way. There are a lot of rules here that can trip someone up. Don't take it personally, that you tripped up on the 3RR one. Cheers, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 19:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. — Kww( talk) 20:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Jack of All, Master of None ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dear Kww, with my humble and due respect to your admin status, did you even see the reason why SudoGhost is making me do this? He is repeatedly playing all the tricks and modifying the articles as he pleases along with friend. Please read "Terrorist Background and InterPol Red Corner Notice" on the [Baburam Bhattarai] page. I am providing factually correct information and I have given correct information backed by sources from newspapers and wikileaks. He did not like this and removed all the sources and everything I put there. So I placed a 'neutrality-disputed tag' on the concerned issue and he removed the 'neutrality-tag'. He just wants to be the judge and he is not letting a third party discuss on this issue. He is getting me banned and warned. I am here to provide factually correct information and everyone is supporting the other person who is somehow obsessed with not letting the article on Baburam be factually correct.
He is hell bent on getting this information removed. I don't know why. There are no accusations or name calling in the above point. This is just a fact sourced from newspapers. I am a student of Nepal and South Asian politics and I know what I am talking about. If wikipedia is here to provide one side of the story, then it is completely shameful. You all ban people without knowing what is the reason. This is not justice! I am here to provide with all correct information so that everyone gets a balanced story about everything. I stand for a propaganda free world where everyone uses the power and knowledge of everyone. If I am unblocked then it will be a victory of justice and neutrality over propaganda ridden world. Jack of All, Master of None ( talk) 20:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A combination of NOTTHEM and a general battleground mentality here that I don't like seeing in unblock requests. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 21:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
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.
Please understand that my advice to remove your unblock request was given before the request was declined. You need to be aware that removing declined requests is not allowed as long as your block is current. Again, you need to understand the advice at WP:GAB. I do not know if unblocking this account will ever happen, but it certainly will not happen if your request does not make clear that you understand the issue that resulted in the block and how to avoid the issue in the future. Tide rolls 21:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Jack of All, Master of None ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Sir/Ma'ams, I have read NOTTHEM mentioned by The Blade of Northern Lights. Any reasoning to protest the block is to be provided once the block is lifted. I understand that I should not have edited the article (or say - had an editwar) concerned just after my auto-block was lifted. I red-edited the concerned page just once after my auto-block was lifted. I never went for an edit war once that auto-block was lifted today. Sir/ Ma'am, please see the concerned article in this regard. I sincerely apologise for what happened and will do my best to make sure that this is not repeated in the future. Kindly advise if there are any further steps I need to take in order to get the block to be lifted. Kindly advise at the earliest, as I am very perturbed by this issue.
-- Jack of All, Master of None ( talk) 21:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Per agreement. Be aware that your edits are being monitored by multiple admins at this point, and any attempt to reinclude that material without consensus will lead to an immediate block— Kww( talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19519379_ITM - http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/01/01/top-stories/Parties-vow-to-end-trust-deficit/3609/ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3246066.stm Please provide your summary of the above news articles. Can you? Baburam Bhattarai did have a criminal history (justified or unjustified) and you are just not allowing anyone to post anything that talks about his criminal past. It can be historically seen from all your edits in that article that you have edited everything that shed light on his 'underground' days.
Hi everyone, I would love if anyone can write a brief summary - in 1 or 2 sentence - regarding the historical background of Baburam Bhattarai that can be put up on his wikipedia page. We need to write based on these articles:
- http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19519379_ITM - http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/01/01/top-stories/Parties-vow-to-end-trust-deficit/3609/ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3246066.stm
My brief summary is: "In 2003, Baburam Bhattarai along with 14 other persons had Interpol red corner notices issued against them for crimes such as murder and terrorism." Do you all think this summary provides the accurate information as per above sourced articles?
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
19:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Jack of All, Master of None ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Oh he is calling me anti-Maoist. Which is like calling someone anti-terrorist in Nepal and India. I gladly accept it. But he and SudoGhost are deleting posts (with credible sources) that I make...just see the discussion above. So you are cutting my hands. Not the root of the problem. He accepts my point of view though but keeps deleting my posts with his colleague SudoGhost. They are doing the same to everyone's posts. Even Wiki admins posts. So I said, thank you and I would make sure (by going to admins of Wikipedia) that their ways of manipulating wikipedia are not accepted. What's wrong with that? You think it's threatening? Infact they are deleting my sourced posts and they keep getting me blocked with unreasonable complaints and have been threatening me for a long time now...like the pro-maoists do to real people in real life. I have no agenda on wikpipedia like they do...just bring correct info on wikipedia. I don't wish him a nice day ahead. Freedom of speech and logical reasoning is accepted I hope. ::Boing!@ 20:23, of course I stand by my statement. Why anyone else without a particular agenda, would delete posts which are taken right out newspapers and BBC and put on Wikipedia as they are. Someone who is either very versatile or has a deep-rooted interest to make sure that there is no free flow of information? He called me names by calling me 'anti-maoist'. You didn't ban him? I am feeling so bad that he called me names. What action did you take against him? You are not even aware of what the actual situation and you are acting in a biased manner. So I am made to believe you are with them as well? :::Hahaha. SudoGhost and HunterSilver are acting victims and the police here. They come here, deleted posts, get others blocked. And some of the WikiAdmins are judging the case and blocking innocent people without having any clue what-so-ever of what-the-heck in the world is going on. Beautiful world! Hahahaha. I am going nuts. :) -- Jack of All, Master of None ( talk) 20:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In view of your assurances before the last unblock followed by this shortly after it, I do not think that unblocking you, or restoring your talk page access, would be helpful to the project. Any further unblock request should be made via the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. JohnCD ( talk) 20:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
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.