User talk:ZORDANLIGHTER

ZORDANLIGHTER, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi ZORDANLIGHTER!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix

Do not re-open a DECLINED edit request. You MUST create a brand new one, and follow the instructions given. So, please UNDO your most recent changes on the article talkpage and start afresh. ES &L 11:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I WILL TRY . NEVR DONE BEFORE. LETS SEE HOW IT WORKS

ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove people's comments on the talkpage: You're NOT supposed to even request the protected edit unless you have wP:CONSENSUS for the wording. If someone disagrees with your words, then the discussion must continue ES &L 17:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

when he said about my words, I have changed my words. Its not the same anymore only the references are same--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for repeatedly removing the valid comments of other editors from article talkpage discussions, contrary to warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. D P 09:25, 17 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was trying to remove this user xcrescent's comments , but in the process sometimes huon's and other editer's comments were removed. If you read his comments , you will find that even though he does not have any valid sources , he is making claims of best sources which he is not presenting. He was stalling the edit for no good reason, it's not possible for any administrator to have knowledge about every subject. As he was tring to stop a valid edit request- with a friendly gesture by calling others as 'dear user' , 'my brothers' the adminstrators started considering him as a good faith editer.Honestly I have given every possible links of movie reviews of the movie Total Siyapaa , But when I found out that his claims of better sources was baseless, I wanted to remove his comments. If you have time please check the talk page ; there you will find all the valid links of reputed news agencies. But he was saying my sources were not reliable. According to him , top news agencies of India, Pakistan, and newyorktimes are not reliable. If someone lies openly, then Wikipedia will ask me to prove its a lie. I understand administrators have less time, but even you also need to look at the detail. Just for the sake of an example- if i see that in Hitlers Wikipage its written that Hitler is the founder of red cross and some useless references are given. then When I try to edit the page i will find that the page is protected, after that when i will write all the truth about him , then administrators will ask me provide references from valid sources. After that when i give references, administrator will ask me to give exact wording, then when i finally present the desired editing which will be liked by majority, at that time some vandal comes and says your sources are not reliable, you are plagiarising, i have better sources, .D P So I am asking you , what to do with this type of users? --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 10:36 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

You still appear to think it is acceptable to delete other users' comments if you disagree with them. Since that is precisely the behaviour you were blocked for, I am declining your appeal. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:04, 17 March 2014 (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.

Which part of "you may not remove ANYONE's comments from the article talkpage" are you having the most issue understanding? It doesn't matter how credible YOU believe your ref's are, all changes are based on DISCUSSION and CONSENSUS. You don't get to decide that YOUR argument is better, and you most certainly can NOT remove someone's comments D P 11:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this has nothing to do with what I believe. I was not fighting for my argument. This is about what majority believes. If my argument is supported by majority, at that point of time some vandal comes and tries to disrupt editing without any valid reference then what to do ?. If you check this then you will know a lot about all those personal attacks that were launched against me , but the administrators didn't take any action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Total_Siyapaa#Protected_edit_request_on_13_March_2014_2 . Your comment "You don't get to decide that YOUR argument is better ". can be said about this xcrescent also . This is what he said about me- " He just started using account four days ago. He directly landed on Total Siyapaa Talk page with out editing any other WP page and immediately he is pushing unreliably sourced content with poor english." and this also-"It may also face strong resistant and harsh statements by ZORDANLIGHTER because of his new career in WP". Now Don't you consider this type of comments aggressive. Yes I tried to remove his comments but as i mentioned before I didn't want to remove other user's comment, that was a mistake. Few days ago a user named Ibnebatutaji (talk) was accusing me of sock of Vvarkey (talk). But he himself turned out to be a sock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ibnebatutaji). You are right I don't get to decide whose argument is better. Check for yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Total_Siyapaa#Sock_puppetry).I am not deciding that my argument is better. But I am a Human being. If I know a person is lying for some personal bias, its impossible for me to support a lie.I may not be a administrator but You have to accept that there must be some topioc in WP where I more knowledge than others. Yes , once again I will say that I don't get to decide, so check for yourself whether my reference sources were better or his(he didn't provide a single reference) still one administrator was giving importance to his objections, And strangely administrators were accusing me of being aggressive but nobody warned him about making harsh statements about me D P --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not addressing the rule that you may NEVER remove someone else's comments. You did it multiple times, even after being asked to stop. D P 12:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D P This time I am not going to ask for unblocking me. if you think I need to be blocked, go ahead. But I need to know this : how can a user who does not provide a single reference is given equal importance to a user who provides 30 references from reliable sources. This user Xcrescent9 told repeatedly that my sources were unreliable even though they were from The Times of India , NDTV 24x7 ,CNN-IBN ,Hindustan Times,The Indian Express , The New York Times , The Hindu,India Today,Deccan Chronicle,International Business Times,Daily News and Analysis,Variety (magazine),Koimoi ,Rediff.com,The Telegraph (Calcutta).If you are good faith administrator then explain what gave him the right to decide that he is more accurate than the movie critics of top news agaencies listed above.Xcrescent9,was always talking about various sources but he failed to give any reference.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Total_Siyapaa#Protected_edit_request_on_13_March_2014_2) And he even asked me to improve my English .D P , let me ask you: Who is he to say that? Do I type like a grade 1 student? .What gave him that right to say " He just started using account four days ago. He directly landed on Total Siyapaa Talk page with out editing any other WP page and immediately he is pushing unreliably sourced content with poor english." and this also-"It may also face strong resistant and harsh statements by ZORDANLIGHTER because of his new career in WP". Yunshui 雲‍水 By the way this time I am not asking to be unblocked but I am stating the reasons why I removed his comments (and as explained earlier,removing other user's comments other than xcrescent9 was a mistake). And both of you are blocking auser who is making valuable contribution to WP(check my sources -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Total_Siyapaa#Protected_edit_request_on_13_March_2014_2 ) and you are supporting a user who is engaging in time wasting tactics by confusing the administrators without giving any reference --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing the damned point: YOU removed someone else's comments; period. You're blocked accordingly. It doesn't matter if you're trying to improve things, that's a CORE concept. It's NEVER acceptable.

All attempts to achieve WP:CONSENSUS are through discussion. All should be policy-based, and changes should be sourced. However, not all discussion must include sources - for example, if I say "I don't think X should be included", then I don't need a source, do I? If I think something should be phrased in a certain way, I don't need to source it to a reference, do I? Xcrescent9 is permitted to his opinion. However, after a couple of weeks of discussion, wP:CONSENSUS will be determined.

Note: you had made MULTIPLE semi-protected edit requests - you are NOT supposed to to that until you have consensus for the wording of the change. You're acting wholly contrary to the nature of this project.

...and yes, your English does need a little bit of work - especially your understanding of the policies and processes. Some of your proposed phrasing on the talkpage has indeed been very poor English - again, that's why we discuss changes FIRST.

These are NOT meant to be insults - they're meant to guide you gently into this project and the policies and processes that YOU agreed to when you started editing D P 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D P Okay I maybe my English was wrong. I shouldn't have removed other's comments even if i disagree. But even you didn't explain why administrators didn't take any action when Xcrescent9 told repeatedly that my sources were unreliable even though they were from The Times of India , NDTV 24x7 ,CNN-IBN ,Hindustan Times,The Indian Express , The New York Times , The Hindu,India Today,Deccan Chronicle,International Business Times,Daily News and Analysis,Variety (magazine),Koimoi ,Rediff.com,The Telegraph (Calcutta) .

Because it's his opinion that the sources were unreliable, and he's permitted to have an opinion. Why would we block for that? D P 14:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D P Actually that was the reason I was removing his comments as you can see, they were far from reality: and I felt with such kind of opinion we can't have any positive feedback. Now If xcrescent thinks that i am wrong to believe that these are reliable sources The Times of India , NDTV 24x7 ,CNN-IBN ,Hindustan Times,The Indian Express , The New York Times , The Hindu,India Today,Deccan Chronicle,International Business Times,Daily News and Analysis,Variety (magazine),Koimoi ,Rediff.com,The Telegraph (Calcutta) , then God help him . And this time I am not asking you to unblock me. And He is calling me fraud , cheat everywhere D P Yunshui 雲‍水https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius#CRITICAL_RECEPTION_section_of_Total_Siyapaa_cheating_by_ZORDANLIGHTER , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:C.Fred#CRITICAL_RECEPTION_section_of_Total_Siyapaa_cheating_by_ZORDANLIGHTER

So, you were told to STOP removing his comments. You refused to stop, which now by your admission is because you were not allowing him to have an opinion. Note: he's been blocked for actual personal attacks, so please make NO further comments regarding his accusations of "cheat" and "fraud". D P 14:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Title redacted)

Personal attack removed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soham (talk) I would want you to read what xcrescent9 has written above using block evading sock puppets. Soham (talk) since you are an Indian you may understand his words written in Hindi/urdu mixed using English alphabets.Huon (talk) , — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} , D PI want to tell all administrators that xcrescent is using block evading sock puppets to write abusive language in local dialect so that those administrators who are unfamiliar with indian languages will not understand the level of cheap talks he is talking aboutC.Fred (talk).--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]