User talk:GHALOOGHAARAA

You are being an idiot, please stop, or you will be bitch slapped straight into the firey depths of hell by the angry hand of god. You need to realize large sections of Wikipedia are controlled by agents of the Indian government, and even thinking about any edit that provides any information what so ever, that questions or contradicts the point of view of the government controlled Indian media is strictly forbidden and will lead to an indefinite block.

You have been unfairly blocked indefinitely from editing because user:YellowMonkey hates you and that is the only justification he needs. If you believe this block is unjustified, please realize that nobody really cares per WP:DGAF, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Of course appealing your block will be a complete waist of time, but please try anyway because administrators will get a kick of laughing at you for being stupid enough to try as they refuse your appeal.

Questions and comments from supporters[edit]

Thanks. I suspected something like that. I know I have gotten under the skin of someone who goes by the handle "user:sharkbait". He is a passionate "anti-cult" warrior. Perhaps he got this going. I am obviously very new to this. Any suggestions for re-posting this article and keeping it up? Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really have little or no idea what these guys are talking about?[edit]

Check edit history of talk page

removed section on GHALOOGHAARAA on Sept 18th

Apparently I am being blocked now based on evidence obtained using extra sensory perception evidence from someone interested in India related topics named User:Abecedare?

User:Abecedare may I please one day have a shrine like this ,but I also suspect that some of these blocks can be attributed to point of view pushing through the use of administrative power, to exclude a whole class of users? I honestly think you have conflated a number of users with the same edit pattern into a single user.

What does (a GFDL violation of Third Sikh Holocaust 1984) mean exactly? Actually this material was copied in what I thought was a fair and square way from 1984_anti-Sikh_riots?

What about the back up copy on my hard drive, I copied it off of Wikipedia and really think it belongs to me, not that it is any use since I am now apparently forbidden to edit.

GHALOOGHAARAA (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid used his checkuser powers to discover your sockpuppetry. Let's not feign ignorance. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for visiting the ashram of NPOV Closedmouth, I find the above statement to be very point of view. Sockpuppetry means the abuse of multiple accounts, and I don't think welcoming new users or any of the edits from this account constitute abuse of multiple accounts, but that is not what I was asking for help with. Have faith in the second pillar my child, the block policy is hopelessly point of view, as it gives undue weight to the the opinions of a handful of administrators, and is hotly contested by a much larger group of people who hold the opinion that they have been unfairly blocked for time in all eternity. Please come back again.

I found this edit of Nishkid particularly interesting, seems he has an intense interest in the obscure territorial claims of the Indian government per WP:DUCK it makes me just a little paranoid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Meghdoot&oldid=314124368

Copy rights question again.[edit]

{{helpme}} What does (a GFDL violation of Third Sikh Holocaust 1984) mean exactly? Actually this material placed in my user space, was copied in what I thought was a fair and square way from 1984_anti-Sikh_riots?

What about the back up copy on my hard drive. I copied it off of Wikipedia and really think it belongs to me, but want to make sure this is correct.

What does GFDL violation mean in the context of the this post, and I really don't have any idea what they are talking about. What if I were to continue to edit this material and post it on another web site other than Wikipedia?

If userifying Third Sikh Holocaust 1984 can solve these copy right problems would someone please be so kind as to place it in my user space?

A GFDL violation of a Wikipedia article usually means that someone has copied the content of a page and pasted elsewhere, without making the source clear. If you create content and license it under the GFDL, i.e. by publishing it on Wikipedia, you have the same rights to it as everybody else, as clearly laid out under the terms of the license. If you want advice regarding a particular page or discussion, please link to it. Regards, Skomorokh 20:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article in question[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Sikh_Holocausts

It would be really nice of you to upload a userified version of

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_Sikh_Holocaust_1984

for user:Guru_Fatha_Singh_Khalsa he wants one, but he is so new that he does not really know how to go about asking for one. He is a potentially really good editor and a notable published author within "Sikhdom" who has written several books on the subject. If next time he logged in he saw his article back in his user space it would go a long way to make him feel welcome.

Thanks so much for the help!

GHALOOGHAARAA (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please not use the helpme feature for these types of requests? Helpme is meant for those who need immediate urgent help, think of it as a 911 call ;). Anyways, to answer your question, the perfect noticeboard to post to for requests to userfy pages is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Place the request there and an admin should come around shortly to review it. Thanks. -- œ ^™ 01:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some reflection on blocking policy.[edit]

This user believes that it is destiny you saw their user page.

The term unfair indefinite block normally means that some administrator hates you. It can also mean some careless administrator a long time ago, pressed a button on you. It could possibly mean your room mates or a house guest did something wrong and you ended up taking the wrap. Some Samurai administrators view editors as peasants and gleefully lop of their heads with an indefinite block on a whim with very little thought to it. This article discusses being placed on an unfair indefinite block, and does not apply to those who are on a indefinite block that is justified. Sadly the policy that an indefinite block should be lifted when it is no longer justified was been eliminated Sep 4th 2009.

If you carefully read policy, it is open to the interpretation that a user acting in good faith to make Wikipedia better, unfairly on a stale indefinite block, is welcome to try again to make a clean start, and just create a new user account and be good and hopefully no one will notice that they are a member of the Wikipedia underclass.

Some of the best and most civil editors on Wikipedia are on unfair indefinite block. Someone with a warrant out for their arrest goes the speed limit when a police car is behind them.

Requesting to be unblocked[edit]

It is widely believed that the unblock procedure is a form of torture for the less experienced among the indefinitely blocked. From stories I hear, it is pretty stupid to even ask to get unblocked once unfairly placed on indefinite block because they almost never unblock anybody. Rather the whole procedure is a form of torture, used to illicit confessions from the unfairly blocked for supposed wrong doing for which there is no proof. Like in all forms of witch hunting sometimes they trick people into confessing things they did not even do. They ask you to admit what you did, that you did something wrong, and promise to never do it again. Often this can be a ruse to collect evidence and confessions, even false ones. For those who believe that they have been unfairly placed on indefinite block, and have no wrong doing to confess to, attempting to follow this procedure is a complete waist of time.

At one time in order to use check user on a suspected member of the Wikipedia subhuman (reincarnated, making a clean start, unfair indefinitely blocked) cast, a witch hunter at least needed probable cause. If a user has done nothing wrong, and apparently this accounts only crime was welcoming another user, who's talk page was being patrolled by stalkers, it seems to me that using check user amounts to an illegal search. In my case, I don' think they even bothered with check user, and blocked me as a preemptive tactic in a content dispute. If you don't believe this look at the edit history of this user account. What reason can you give for a check user being done? If you are reading this and you have abused check user in the past, please stop.

If you ask to be unblocked sometimes they tell you to send a letter the the arbitration committee. Contacting the arbitration committee is about as stupid as climbing the Reichstag in a spider man suit. Writing a letter to the Arbitration committee is the road to official banishment for those who are unable to master the five pillars. Many administrators don't like problems. They typically reject any argument longer than a paragraph as a wall of text. If you reincarnate your self, resolving to become a better editor, you can normally go for a long time with out anybody noticing that you are blocked. As you improve your editing skills and understanding of civility the time between detections will lasting longer and longer.

WP:RBI A pretext of vandalism motivated by hate.[edit]

There appears to be a growing element in Wikipedia who is reversing edits, based on the fact that an editor has some administrator that hates them, or is a member of the reincarnated community, no matter high quality of their edits. They remove very well written and sourced material that really belongs on Wikipedia, simply because it was written by someone they hate. This WP:RBI policy, or at least the interpretation of it that, any material no matter how good it is must be deleted if it was created by a reincarnated user, who is honestly trying to make a clean start in order to crush their sole, in my opinion is doomed to failure.

If you are a reincarnated editor trying their best to become a better editor, and you feel that administrators are stalking you, and that their underling motive is to manipulate the point of view of Wikipedia content and not prevent abuse, the way to fight back is to become an even better editor, cite more sources, or maybe even do nothing but cite sources. One of two possible outcomes of this, is that someday people will start noticing how edit logs are being deleted, and content is mysteriously disappearing, and at some point, these misbehaving check users and administrators will be thrown out of power. Or perhaps not, another point of view is that Wikipedia will become an organ of large corperate and state propaganda, and agents of the powerful will infiltrate Wikipedia and stalk citizens who express view points not in line with government policy.

It may become more frequent as in my case, that they will target editors who even talk to users they are trying to disappear.

Master the five pillars and reincarnate on a higher plane of existence[edit]

If you are reincarnated and claim the right to edit Wikipedia based on mastership of the fifth pillar, each time you sit down at a computer to edit, and the edit box comes up, it means that you are not blocked, because blocking means that you are being prevented from editing with software. Evidently the actual period of your indefinite block has ended. Sadly it does not mean that important people don't hate you.

Effective Ban[edit]

Once an administrator presses the button on you, when you see a welcoming edit box, it does not mean that you are welcome, instead, the edit box before you, means that while you are able to edit, a few important people in your environment hate you, and you are not really welcome to edit Wikipedia. This is the true meaning of being effectively banned as opposed to being actually banned. Effectively banned could mean as few as only one administrator does not like you or want you on Wikipedia.

Community Ban[edit]

Being community banned means that everybody hates you. All the administrators had a meeting and all agreed that they hate you, and you are not really welcome to edit. Actually it can also mean that one administrator hates you but one administrator does not hate you. If an administrator who has not really been filled in on how things work, unblocks someone who has been placed on an unfair indefinite block, this often triggers a discussion on a community ban, when the original blocking administrator objects. Administrators are discouraged from unblocking a user blocked by another administrator, but when this happens the administrator who hates the user gets together with his palls and they discuss a community block, to prevent any other administrators from unblocking someone on indefinite block.

Conclusion[edit]

Always remember to be guided by the fourth pillar, because those that hate you and seek to destroy you, and the content you create, based on their hatred, have forgotten not only the fifth pillar but the fourth pillar as well.

The true secrete to reincarnation and eternal life is to master the second pillar, because neutral point of view is above policy and rules and can't be ignored.

A disputed social construct is intrinsically a non neutral point of view.

Thus spoke GHALOOGHAARAA (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Developments.[edit]

This edit[1] seems to be related to the neutral point of view presentation of recent Sikh history in a small way. Apparently the anonymous user who temporarily got over excited in the deletion discussion has made a formal apology for his misbehavior. No charges of using WP:SOCK to manipulate the AFD can be made of this repentant IP address since it clearly abstained from voting.

Apparently the apology of this anonymous user has been accepted on behalf of administration by Sandstein and this should help to ease tensions a little bit. We thank Sandstein for being so WP:CIVIL as to accept this apology.

Sadly this entire problem can apparently be traced back to some long ago retired editor named HoboJaks, who became so upset in a deletion discussion that he vowed to never edit under that user name ever again, and attempted to change his user name in the middle of a deletion discussion[2] to Hamilton's Wrath, who apparently is some sort of demon. It is a firm tenant of Dragon policy to never confirm or deny being under demonic possession, however for my own part let me add that retiring ones user name in the middle of a deletion discussion is a really, really stupid mistake, and not one that this dragon is likely to make in the future.

Welcome Julian Colton.[edit]

I was looking at these edits on your talk page.

Thank you for taking the time to look into my unfair block! Please consider unblocking me. I am the offended party, both in a content dispute with spaceman spliff and User:YellowMonkey, and the editor being described in the comment that you moved. However I question the space man's logic that any anonymous user who objects the Abecedare's behavior in my unfair blocking case, can automatically be assumed to be me, and can automatically be excluded from the discussion.

The space man's attempt to conflate every student at a major west coast university who opposes the antics of the India project cabal into a single banned user is forbidden by WP:NPA, WP:AGF, because groundless attacks against an anonymous user typing from a public computer are both personal attacks, and don't assume good faith.

By his own admission, he seems not to understand the relevant policy. I would suggest he review WP:CANVAS, and possibly WP:VANDAL, as he seems to be attempting to canvas you to vandalize an RFA? I know you mean well User:Juliancolton, but although banished to my cave, I am watching this debate closely, and discussing it with my school mates, who are also concerned. You might want to read the discussion, and address the issue raised as a point of order by the anonymous user. I also invite you to reconsider this edit[3].

Thank you for visiting the dragon cave, you are always welcome here.