User talk:Lumix Myself

Wikipedia a total biased source

So apparently a group of people belonging to a specific nationality and ethnicity group decided to gang-up. Managing to completely ruin and vandalize a certain page with biased information. Only to force me to confront them and restore the page to it's original state, BUT it appears that Mr. [[1]] having no moral obligation of his own goes on to request Mr. [[2]] to block me, he having no integrity simply does it because he says "I have Indian neighbors and friends" forgetting his moral obligation to solve the dispute. Wow just great.You guys are one of the most ignorant and dense minded people I've ever met, no wonder people mock Wikipedia for being a totally unauthentic and biased source filled with toxic biased information.

I requested Cullen to unblock me, but apparently he loves ignoring appeals from people who feel that their opinions were ignored. Mr. Sitush was quick to ask him to block, just like he did for another user.

Claps to you! If Wikipedia has such people in it's community I don't think I can believe it to be true or an authentic source. Anyone can link to certain website run for propaganda purposes with biased information only pertaining to the statement made by one-side ignoring the other. I disagreed with the edits made on a certain page, I was not offered a consensus and ignored. The users based on familiarity requests to the other to block, the other user does it in a heartbeat without even consulting my concerns. The weird thing is majority of the users due to statement I made go on about referencing a post I made complaining about the community. Yes, I did complain, because I was upset and I was treated unfairly, the user Sitush has requested a block second time, me being the second person getting blocked, did anyone question him as to why he keeps asking admins to block others just because he can't managed to talk, make consensus or have a discussion with another user?

In a rant post of another user, he goes on about "They don't make much of contribution, so it won't matter" - How can that be ignored? This is a personal attack on me. But he gets to do what he wants. I end up getting blocked. It's unfair.

Re: "a group of people belonging to a specific nationality and ethnicity group decided to gang-up", the people to whom you refer are from at least three different nationalities. They also include very accomplished Wikipedia editors, with decades of experience between them - they are far from being "ignorant and dense minded people". The problem with your edits is that they were unsourced, which is a violation of one of Wikipedia's key policies, that of verifiability - which has been explained to you before. You should consider yourself fortunate that I have not already revoked your ability to edit this talk page in response to your unacceptable personal attacks, but I'm hoping that once your apparent anger subsides you will take a moment to read that policy and come to understand why we regularly revert unsourced edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Posting biased and false information does not make it right, maybe you should question your verifiability when you listed that the Punjabi Shaikhs are located only in India. Without realizing that Punjab is divided between India and Pakistan.

The problem with most of your posts is that any stranger can edit them, even people who have no knowledge or historical links to that certain topic. But I guess on your end you can write whatever you want, but if someone writes something which again they have knowledge on that topic you assume that you're more informed on that topic. I pointed out bias and disagreed with it, blocking someone because they disagreed with a post doesn't make you right. Where is your source for your claims that Punjabi Shaikhs are in India? Whereas, historical Punjab was divided between India and Pakistan at 1947 partition.

Regards, [[3]]

That was a mere mention over an info-box and the main text states South Asia. But, that does not excuse yours' insertion of vast amounts of un-sourced information. You were not blocked because we were disagreeing with you but because you were refusing to engage in a discussion and not respecting basic policies.∯WBG^converse 12:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Lumix_Myself: First of all, let me make it clear. Those texts posted ARE NOT mine, those existed way before I began editing. I simply expanded on the available information. Have a look at the history of that Wikipedia page, my sole intention was entirely editing out mistakes and reviewing or expanding on the information posted. But, when I came back to check I saw that the page was reduced and some information on it was invalid, I thought it was vandalism and speculated on somethings which in turn making some users upset. I was pretty sure I was doing my job. If you don't believe me, look at the edit history of that page.

Also I pointed out a mistake in that page, but for some reason most people are so stringent, probably because I speculated the users must have been Indians and were playing a funny prank or joke. But I guess I shouldn't have said such things, I do agree that I was wrong on making such assumptions. But the BLOCK is uncalled for, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE MAKING ACCUSATIONS THAT I WROTE ALL THAT! WHEN THE REALITY IS IT WAS THERE WAY BEFORE I BEGAN EDITING IT!

I'm requesting an unblock. I feel that I was treated unjustly and being a new user who began editing only a few months ago, does not call for such a hostile treatment of environment to work for a common goal of benefiting the community. As I said earlier I simply did my job at restoring the article to it's original form I did not expect that the community had made a consensus on it.

Whoever made the original additions that you were restoring and/or expanding does not change the fact that it is fine to remove unsourced material and not fine to reinstate it (whatever an individual editor might personally know about the subject). And as User:Winged Blades of Godric says above, that is not the reason for the block anyway - the block is for the confrontational approach to disagreement that you exhibited. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but I specifically mentioned that I acknowledged that I made a mistake what else do you want from me? I'm telling you I'm a new user, I tried my best to do the right thing except made a mistake. That's my first mistake, I'm new here - I'm pretty sure a lot of people that are new tend to make mistakes at things. Why are you expanding on this for so long. I already acknowledged that I made a mistake, I requested to talk to the concerned user but I was ignored and also blocked by another user. I was not given a chance at all.

Yes, you were given chances in the form of warnings on this talk page - which you removed. Your unblock request, below, will be reviewed by another admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This hostility is uncalled for. I even gave an explanation and attributed it to confusion, but ignoring my plea just proves my point further that I was blocked unfairly. I am making a final and last request, that if there is a sane person in this community to remove the block as it is unnecessary. This was entirely a misunderstanding and a newbie user blunder. Lumix Myself (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hostility? After "This page will remain as is and I will decide what changes are accepted and denied, your assistance is NOT appreciated, nor it is required", "a group of people belonging to a specific nationality and ethnicity group decided to gang-up", "having no moral obligation of his own", "having no integrity", "You guys are one of the most ignorant and dense minded people I've ever met", "You guys are great example of the cancerous Wikipedia community"... you have the nerve to claim it is *you* who are the victim of hostility? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged my mistake, I'm a new user. What do you want from me? I accept that I made a mistake why are you continually furthering this discussion when I simply stated that I made a mistake and will avoid in future. Why do you keep listing previous posts encouraging others to think that I am still making such remarks. You're being hostile and you're proving it by posting my previous mistakes. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME?! Lumix Myself (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just delete my account. I don't want to be a Wikipedia user and contributor anymore, I guess even after acknowledging your own mistake people show no mercy. I guess my intentions of working with this community was a mistake, especially when being a new user having someone to help me or give me hints on how things are done, I get others simply ignoring my requests, everyone makes mistakes. It's not like everyone is perfect but for a new user to make a mistake is always met with hostility from senior users. Just delete my account or completely block me...

Wikipedia accounts can not be deleted. If you want to be unblocked, you simply have to be patient and wait for a volunteer admin to review your request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the info... Lumix Myself (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is any person going to unblock me or what? I keep getting confusing answers. Why was I blocked without having a discussion, instead all I got was intimidated replies mentioning "it will always be reverted" I disagree with the posts made by some users as they are very well aware that they were wrong. The page editing they did is wrong and false, if you continue to promote such fallacies on Wikipedia it will not be considered a reliable source. I am not going accept this bigotry plainly just because someone requested another user to Block me based on familiarity another issue which is rampant over here. HOW CAN YOU SIMPLY BLOCK SOMEONE SO QUICKLY AT A DROP OF A HAT DUE TO FAMILIARITY?! WHERE IS YOUR INTEGRITY IN DECISION-MAKING? Punjab is divided by India and Pakistan, I will NEVER accept such edits made on that page indicating that they only exist in India because those edits made are false. Instead do a favor and revert the page to the version made by the original user, that is the best solution. How can complete strangers be considered "experts" in something? Most of these people wouldn't even know what's happening half way across the Earth. Simply claiming "we can edit out anything we want and change it too" doesn't make it right. Promoting bias doesn't make it true, you can tell a thousand lies, this doesn't make it morally correct. I was blocked unfairly, there was no consensus only "might makes it right" being applied here. This favoritism just because you're familiar with some user needs to stop, how the hell do you know that what edits he and his pals are making are correct? NO, I am not going to accept such a biased way of editing. I refuse to accept that my initial edits were wrong. They were correct and factual Allama Iqbal is a Shaikh, it is proven, his father was a Shaikh also who migrated to Sialkot. I REFUSE to accept such narrow minded editing made to erase facts from this page. Even looking at some other Wikipedia pages makes me feel like I'm looking at a cesspool of propaganda and lies. Why were internally linked valid Wikipedia articles removed? It doesn't make any sense. Lumix Myself (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this taking so long? Cullen talks about "let's have a discussion or I was willing to discuss" but he doesn't appear to even talk to me or make a valid note of my request. I don't see any purpose in letting this block be continued. This is abuse of power. Lumix Myself (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All unblock requests go into a queue and are reviewed by volunteers in their (sometimes rare) free time. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jannik, I appreciate your response. I'll be patient. Lumix Myself (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You must abandon your confrontational style of editing if you want to be unblocked. Please read and understand WP:OWN, and by the way, I am not Indian. I am just another human being with a lot of Indian neighbors and friends, none of whom are Wikipedia editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 18 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

You make it look like I'm some sort of racist, I simply said that I disagree with the editing made by Indian users, I said that leaving out Pakistan is biased, why is it so controversial? I'm not the one putting my personal feelings into this, this is unfair. Why would you say that you've got Indian neighbors I don't understand what's your point here. I demand justice and a fair review, why have you set my block duration to "no expiry" that's a little bit too harsh. I never wrote anything wrong and avoid bothering the user on his talk page, I simply wanted to reach a consensus. This is unfair... 08:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no commitment to changing your confrontational approach to other editors, or any indication that you can even see it. In fact, you are continuing with the same approach by making attacks here on this talk page with "You guys are great example of the cancerous Wikipedia community."

Also, an edit summary like "Restored previous version due to Rinku sharma71 and Sitush constantly ruining the page and had reduced it to nothing. Please stop defiling a page I'm aware that you're both Indians but please keep your feelings out of this, how can you list "India" as the only nation to have Sheikh population whereas the earlier version was correct and factual! This page will remain as is and I will decide what changes are accepted and denied, your assistance is NOT appreciated, nor it is required" demonstrates your unacceptable confrontational approach. No, *you* do not get to dictate the content of pages - that is decided by civil discussion and consensus. (Oh, and Sitush isn't Indian either - making nationalist attacks is part of your problem).

I urge you to reconsider your approach before you make a new unblock request, as any further attacks will probably lose you the ability to edit this talk page too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made a mistake, but that's expected from a new user. I should have conversed with the other users before restoring the article. I was speculating that someone had removed or tampered with the information and decided on my own that the best option would have been was to restore the content to it's original earlier state which I left it at. But, I do agree that I was wrong on making some assumptions and accusations on some users who were just simply doing their job and I shouldn't have treated them that way (although I didn't say anything wrong to them personally, except request a discussion or talk session from one of the users, unfortunately my attempts were ignored). Being a new user here is tough, but I do expect that some of the users here can find it in their hearts to give me a second chance. Lumix Myself (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At this time, you are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND. I can foresee a time where you are willing to accept edits you disagree with, understand that Wikipedia is built by consensus, and acknowledge that your personal attacks are inappropriate. But you aren't there yet. I suggest applying under WP:SO in six months, specifically addressing your battleground approach and personal attacks at that time. Yamla (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2019 (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 did not ignore your request to discuss things. It was late at night where I live in California and I went to bed and fell asleep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to unblock me? I already gave a thorough explanation. And also gave a reason. The above posts should be enough to fill you in on my side of the story. Lumix Myself (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not when you barge in, and dictate what a page's content is supposed to be and calling the whole bunch of us cancerous. You can go read the pillars and all our policies, but I still really don't think you should continue contributing with this kind of attitude. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not being given a second chance? I said that I'll follow the rules completely. Why is my plea being ignored? Lumix Myself (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hard to trust someone after they've said so much about you.... Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, they've already given you chances in forms of warnings, which you ignored. How can we say we haven't given you chances? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new user can make a lot of mistakes, doesn't mean that you can't give someone just one chance. I haven't even completed half of the procedures involved in getting started and editing pages. I wasn't aware of it and am requesting that some kind user understand my situation. I am also thinking of removing the above remarks I made which most people found insulting. Lumix Myself (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone past your one chance, definitely. You had a few chances to change and you didn't take it, so here we are. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking me would be a good chance or offer for me to change and take responsibility to fix my mistakes. Please, Oshawott, I'm requesting your help on this. I will follow the rules completely and make sure to be civil. I'll also wipe clean my talk page of the rant I made earlier because I felt ignored and ostracized from the community. Lumix Myself (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

In your most recent rant in the first section above, timestamped 04:31, 19 February 2019 (ie just three minutes before you made your nice-sounding "good chance or offer for me to change and take responsibility to fix my mistakes" suggestion), you were once again accusing others of bigotry, bias, abuse of power, lacking integrity, narrow minded editing, creating "a cesspool of propaganda and lies", insisting that you will "will NEVER accept" edits you disagree with, telling us "I refuse to accept that my initial edits were wrong" and so on. That is all in total contradiction to the "I made a mistake..." tone of your unblock request. There is no hint of accepting that Wikipedia content is written based on Reliable Sources and not based on personal knowledge or expertise (which you have been told before). You are swinging between sounding reasonable, and making angry and aggressive attacks, within minutes, which is utterly unacceptable. It is clear that you are not capable of approaching Wikipedia in the required civil and collegial manner, and that you can not at this time play a constructive part in helping build our encyclopedia. As such, and because of your continued attacks on others, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page too. Whoever reviews your current unblock request is welcome to restore it if they believe it will be beneficial to the project. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]