User talk:Jack of All, Master of None

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.

Your recent edits

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of José Ramón Carabante

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)[reply]

I have removed the "hangon" you placed on this article - the notice above is more than two years old, and there is no current proposal to delete it. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jack of All, Master of None. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 01:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sudo Ghost 01:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Posting the same message on your talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page is unnecessary. I have responded here. There are serious concerns with the content of the edit, and until they are addressed, please do not reinsert it into the article, otherwise you will be reported here for edit warring. Also, personal attacks such as the above are disruptive, unfounded, and wildly inaccurate. Throwing inaccurate accusations at other editors will not result in your material being reinserted in the article. Please comment on content, not the contributor. Thank you. - Sudo Ghost 17:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack you will not achieve anything by attacking others and trying to force your point. Neither Sudo and me are the same person (Sudo is way older in terms of wiki edits if you did not notice, why he/she would open a new account is beyond my reach!), nor Baburam and prachanda were branded terrorists. You are accusing us as sons of terrorists etc - I wonder why this hate against Maoists. You might be accused as son of corrupt Congress/UML politicians of Nepal too. Bu attacking others is not going to help anyone, especially you.HunterSilver (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{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)[reply]

Noticed at help desk

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)[reply]

Oh, one more thing. Please add four "tilde" characters, like this ~~~~ at the end of every post you make to a talk page. It's that which makes your "signature" appear, along with a date and time stamp, so we all know who posted which comments, and at what time they did so. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response OhioStandard. Without a shadow of doubt, everyone is realising on the talkpage of Baburam Bhattarai that he has a criminal background and he had interpol red corner notice issued against him and that they were later removed by his partner government. I will add both this info tomorrow on his page when I am unblocked for editing. I AM NOT going to stand down for WHAT IS THE TRUTH. And I will not let WIKIPEDIA stand down for what is the truth! --Jack of All, Master of None (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly advise that you discuss it on the talk page beforehand and ensure that what is being written is well reflected by what reliable sources say, and to establish some sort of consensus before editing the page further, because continuing to revert instead of discuss immediately after being blocked for the same behavior is almost a sure way to get reblocked for a longer period of time. However, if you discuss it on the talk page and come up with a consensus for the edit first, that ensures your material stays in the article. - Sudo Ghost 07:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack of all: I was about to write something similar, "Jack". I don't know anything about the political situation in Nepal, and I have no intrinsic interest in its disputes, on either side. Nor do I know SudoGhost, by the way. Although I've seen his name quite a bit, on various talk pages, I can't recall ever having exchanged messages with him, or even edited any article that he's edited, although it's possible I'm mistaken about that. I don't know what his interests or political opinions might be, either, and have no more "sympathy" or "affinity" with him than I do with you.

But he's perfectly correct about the result that that re-adding the information unilaterally would probably bring: Doing so would be likely to get you blocked again, sooner or later. I'm not an administrator, and I don't mean that as any kind of threat; it's merely an observation from an editor who understands very well how this place works. Re your statements, I AM NOT going to stand down for WHAT IS THE TRUTH. And I will not let WIKIPEDIA stand down for what is the truth! I suggest you see WP:TRUTH. We're not allowed to edit by that (humorous) "policy", we must do so by WP:CONSENSUS, instead. If you can't come to some agreement on the talk page about what language to use to address the issue of the interpol arrest warrant, or whether it should be mentioned at all, then WP:DRN would be the place to take your concerns, not the help desk. Good luck, and do try to keep your communications with others you disagree with respectful and civil as you can. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for immediately returning to edit war after block expiration. Any admin can unblock after editor agrees to stop edit warring.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 20:44, 3 June 2012 (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).

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.

Please let me know what is wrong with this note on Baburam's page:

"In 2003, Baburam Bhattarai along with 14 other persons had interpol red corner notices issued against them for crimes such as murder and terrorism. [1] [2].

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)[reply]

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)[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.

I would suggest you remove the unblock request above. I will not act on requests that proclaim a crusade for justice or decry censorship and propaganda mongering by various individuals or groups of individuals. It shows clearly that you have not read WP:GAB. It's best that you do not have too many declined requests to avoid losing the ability to edit your user talk. Regards Tiderolls 21:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BladeOTNorthernLights just beat me to it. This is an encyclopedia, not a political battleground.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the unblock request after it has been declined - I have reverted your edits to it. If you have further comments to make, please add them to the end of this page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My advice

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. Tiderolls 21:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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.

Sir/ Ma'am Boing @ 22:31, I made a slightly changed edit in the final version and provided all the reason in the TALK PAGE. Now it is an acceptable one. I am not giving an excuse of explanation. It is not my intention. I have understood the very basic error I made, I will not repeat the same. I understand that Wikipedia is not for EditWars...and I will do my best to make sure that this does not happen again. Kindly excuse me and unblock me please as I have realised the mistake I made. I am a new editor and I do not know all the rules. It was an innocent mistake. I have read the unblock guidelines as well.

I can have a discussion on this issue and a fruitful discussion on a talkpage and take the help of admins to solve this. But I am not able to work much with the block. Myself getting frustrated because of this will lead to nowhere. So, I will leave it here and look forward to getting unblocked.

Thank you for the Unblock @ Kww 00:02

--Jack of All, Master of None (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Returning to making the same edits, even once, after your block was released *was* edit warring. You really need to make it clear that you understand that and that you understand how to move forward with the content dispute. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see who is doing a very systematic EditWar with his knowledge of Wikipedia loopholes - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baburam_Bhattarai&action=history . The person - SudoGhost - is removing even the links and edits put up by Wiki Admins. I have no words left to explain the kind of behaviour I am seeing. I ask you admins if this kind of behaviour is justified. Nonetheless, I accept my mistake of edit war and I look forward to unblocking. --Jack of All, Master of None (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle didn't revert to the version intended, so that issue was corrected. Multiple editors have explained on the talk page the issues with the edit, until these serious issues are resolved and some sort of consensus established for the material, the content doesn't need to be on the article. WP:BLP is not a "loophole"; you can call or imply that someone is a terrorist without serious justification, and even then it has to be done carefully and specifically. - Sudo Ghost 23:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is calling anyone a terrorist with the sentence, "In 2003, Baburam Bhattarai along with 14 other persons had Interpol red corner notices issued against them for crimes such as murder and terrorism." The sentence just picks up on what happened in 2003...AS IS WHAT WAS. The sources are:

- 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.

That's exactly what has been said on the talk page numerous times, those sources possibly suggest, but do not directly assert, that Baburam Bhattarai had notices issued against him for murder and terrorism. Per WP:TERRORIST, such a description should be avoided whenever possible. He was part of a group of individuals, and notices were given about this group. Some of the individuals in this group's notices were about murder and terrorism. That's what the sources show. If you're going to use the word terrorist in an article, especially in a WP:BLP article, you need a clear reason for doing so, and a large number of reliable sources that commonly refer to the subject as such. Not vague references to a number of people, but a direct and clear reference. - Sudo Ghost 00:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And edit summaries like this are unnecessary. - Sudo Ghost 00:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need a help

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?

It does provide an accurate information but only from someone with a total anti-maoist views. Violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc etc etc and what else? I have a feeling you will revert again and be blocked. No hope!HunterSilver (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{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)[reply]

You have only just been unblocked, and your first action is to abuse and threaten other users - that kind of behavior is absolutely not acceptable here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2012 (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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

You called one editor a "pro-terrorist agenda filled person" and accused them of "corrupt[ing] Wikipedia", and called another editor a "criminal" - your gratuitous abuse has been deleted, but whoever reviews your unblock request can easily see it in the page history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page, as you are using your unblock requests to continue to attack other editors. Should a reviewing admin be convinced you should be unblocked, they will restore your editing ability at the same time. Or if they decline your request, they may decide to restore your ability to edit here so you can make a fresh request - they are free to decide without consulting me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]