User talk:Observer1989
September 2023[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Indo-Aryan peoples. 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.
I am neither "brain dead" nor "full of propaganda." You will not get very far here if you treat others in this way. — Manticore 00:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- why are you taking that on yourself? i didnt attack you. i just tagged you because you are the one who reverted my edit claiming its just a rant mentioning the same. everything else was tageted towards a specific group of people who are invloved in such activities.are you one of them? why are you offended? my statments were in general not for you.i dont even know you. Observer1989 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
October 2023[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Observer1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
wow u just blocked me for speaking truth.shame on you.because of people like you terrorists thrive.idiot
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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2023 (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.
Observer1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i have been blocked indefinitely just for suggesting that a section of people are biased who are interested in editing this article.how is this fair? there are literaly people who are defending rape and blaming victim women for history of wearing revealing clothes and no action taken against them? when i suggest these people are biased i am blocked INDEFINETELY? i never abused anyone.i never used wikipedia as battleground.my edits are always well sourced.i dont do disruptive editing either. i never even got any warning. furthurmore i have been repeteadly tagged by an editor on different conteneous topic page like india,afganiustan,pakistan for editing when i didnt even edited anything in them. am i being targeted for having an opinion which some dont like? why am i being canceled?is this what wikipedia has fallen down to? i understand i become emotional sometimes and will try not to let my emotions take over again but how is it fair?
Decline reason:
Procedural decline; user does not want this unblock request to be reviewed, as per below. Yamla (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2023 (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.
Observer1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i have been blocked indefinitely just for suggesting that a section of people are biased who are interested in editing this article.how is this fair? there are literaly people who are defending rape and blaming victim women for history of wearing revealing clothes and no action taken against them? when i suggest these people are biased i am blocked INDEFINETELY? i never abused anyone.i never used wikipedia as battleground.my edits are always well sourced.i dont do disruptive editing either. i never even got any warning. furthurmore i have been repeteadly tagged by an admin on different conteneous topic page like india,afganiustan,pakistan for editing when i didnt even edited anything in them. am i being targeted for having an opinion which some dont like? why am i being canceled?is this what wikipedia has fallen down to? i understand i become emotional sometimes and will try not to let my emotions take over again but how is it fair? Observer1989 (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You edited Canada-India relations; this would be sufficient to trigger the notification regarding the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan contentious topic area. As you don't seem to concede that your editing was disruptive, there are no grounds to remove the block. I personally think that part of being unblocked will require you to agree to a topic ban from contentious topic areas(or at least the two you have edited about) until you can demonstrate that you can control your emotions better when editing. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2023 (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.
You already have an open unblock request. No need for a second. Which one open unblock request do you want reviewed? --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- hi yamla, both requests are almost the same.in second one i just changed editor tagging me to an admin tagging and targetting me for my opinions on talk page.they blocked me without even any warning.cherrypicked my sentences without the whole context. i am here to improve encyclopedia not to put baseless allegations on any community.all my edits are to improve wikipedia.you can check.but i am blocked for my opinions on talk page.i agree i became emotional and said some things which might hurt some people(not unsubstantiated tho) but its not fair to block me INDEFINITELY for my opinion, its extremely targetted Observer1989 (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's abusive to have two simultaneous unblock requests. Which one do you want someone else to review? --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- second one as i got a notification for first one that "yama left a message at you talk page 1m ago" so i thot action was taken on first.i am new to wikipedia and might not be familiar with the actions considered as "abuse" Observer1989 (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's abusive to have two simultaneous unblock requests. Which one do you want someone else to review? --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.