User talk:Hardeep80s

Your edits[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources. They are not a platform for contributor's own opinions. If you persist in adding material like this [1] to articles, you are liable to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are based on 'published reliable sources'. I will re-edit the articles and supply references. I hope YOU will not remove them.Hardeep80s (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Hardeep80s, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Darkness Shines (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that I will stay as this is a very unfriendly place.Hardeep80s (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Darkness Shines. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:AndyTheGrump that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive edits, including edit warring, POV-pushing, personal attacks, and sock puppet threats, as you did at Unite Against Fascism. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2013 (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).

Hardeep80s (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My side of the story was not sought, AndyTheGrump's POV was taken as gospel. Also the suspicion that this isnt my first account is unfounded, this IS my first account hence the mistakes. I expect my appeal will be ignored as user Bbb23 has stated 'Blocked for one week. Probably should have been longer'. Now why does he/she think the block should be longer?Hardeep80s (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Accusing other editors of being fascists is a personal attack, which when combined with your edit-warring to keep your personal POV content in an article and to remove content you disagree with from another article, combined with your threat to sockpuppet, adds up to a block. I'd strongly advise you take the time you are blocked to read up on Wikipedia's policies, particularly on reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, how Wikipedia is not censored, and how extraordinary claims require exceptional sources. Also, before choosing to make any further unblock requests, you might wish to read the guide to appealing blocks, particularly WP:NOTTHEM. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 26 August 2013 (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.

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).

Hardeep80s (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am bored with you now, you insist I have made edits pushing a POV. I hope (but doubt) you will apologise when I re-edit with linkt to 'published reliable sources'. Also the use of other accounts will not be for 'socking' as you have accused me of but for editing articles that seem to mislead by omitting crucial points.Hardeep80s (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:37, 26 August 2013 (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.

Please read about block evasion. Any use of additional accounts while blocked is sockpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems strange how 'The Bushranger' has the power of an admin when he/ she admits 'I also sneak around making insidious edits to any other topic I come across that needs a bit of improvement', yet a noob who makes edits without supplying 'published reliable sources' is shot down in flames.Hardeep80s (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read about the reliable sources policy and the neutral point of view policy. Which I follow when WikiGnoming, and you didn't, becoming a tiger loose in the zoo. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiGnoming is a bit different to 'insidious edits'. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Anyway as I said before, I am bored so will not reply anymore. I doubt I will even visit this site within the next 4 months anyway. Hardeep80s (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only to people who have no sense of humour. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]