User talk:Qalandar303
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Qalandar303! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
[edit]
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at [[:Talk:Subh-i-Azal]], you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "Their dishonesty and sectarian bias is a matter of public record going on for years, including part of current evidence in an ongoing legal investigation"--enough already. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- You may wish to also direct the same warning to Cunado who smears anyone he disagrees with as an Iranian government agent. I would also like a reply to the pointed questions on sourcing policy. Qalandar303 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, you need to stop the deflections. You made a very serious allegation that suggested doxxing your fellow editor. Your "pointed" question? It's common sense to NOT include references to things that are not actually cited in the article. But most of all, stop talking about fellow editors in the way you did. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The suggestion is your own inference. However, the matter is as asserted. This is not doxxing. It is a legal investigation that involves a valid claim of religious discrimination and harassment on the part of several Wikipedia editors. I am more than happy to put you in touch with the relevant investigating attorneys, if you wish. However, you need to likewise reprimand the individual in question for incessantly slurring anyone who contradicts the ideological talking points of the organization he belongs to.
- It is not common sense to exclude sources from bibliographical entries that cover the same subject. And I also cannot see this rule specifically specified as such in the links you have provided. Qalandar303 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, you need to stop the deflections. You made a very serious allegation that suggested doxxing your fellow editor. Your "pointed" question? It's common sense to NOT include references to things that are not actually cited in the article. But most of all, stop talking about fellow editors in the way you did. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Drmies (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Qalandar303 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason given for the permanent block is legal threat. However, no threat was made eo ipse. Rather it was noted that a legal investigation is ongoing which involves in its evidentiary findings several Baha'i editors on Wikipedia. No assertions holding the Wikipedia Foundation liable were made, nor statements to the effect of "I will sue." Since this is an ongoing investigation, and notice was given, by any definition "threat" does not exist in such formulation. Therefore, by any reasonable standard, no threat was made. Rather notice was made of an ongoing, existing dispute that goes beyond Wikipedia and involves systematic harassment and religious persecution by Haifan Baha'is of their deemed political and ideological opponents. The Haifan Bahais, among other things, have been using Wikipedia for years to aggressively promote their own exclusive narratives and talking points against the interests of others while gaming the proverbial system by stacking numbers and the like against all those who have complained about it. The user at issue is by their own admission a Haifan Bahai and has been among those longtime Haifan Bahai Wikipedia editors who have been abusing the system and other editors since the early '00s. The evidence for it is extensive, much of it existing within the assorted logs of Wikipedia itself. Furthermore, No_legal_threats states "That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block... Since, per above, no actual threat was made, the reason for the permanent block does not fall under a rubric of legitimate reasons to block, so my account needs to be unblocked. Qalandar303 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As talk page access has been revoked, there is no point to keeping this request open. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:58, 25 January 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 crossed a line by attempting to legally intimidate several Wikipedia editors. Your unblock request fails to address your intimidating behavior, or to provide assurances that you will abandon your intimidation. You may want to reconsider your approach if you wish to edit Wikipedia further. Cullen328 (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, per No_legal_threats "That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block..." You may contextualize my statements however you wish, but Wikipedia itself states no line has been crossed because "giving notice" of an ongoing legal investigation by any standard is not the same thing as making a "threat", and so to conflate the two is a fallacy. Furthermore, an investigation in law is never the same thing as a suit brought in law, which once again reinforces the absence of threat because of a clear distinction. Qalandar303 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Good luck with that argument. You were trying to intimidate other editors, and got blocked for it. Pedantry is not a good tactic for getting unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- You don't have to tell me that because the word is already out far and wide that only the law of the jungle actually prevails on Wikipedia, and that deep pocketed interest groups and organizations, such as the Haifan Bahais, can and have gamed the system - will muscle out and strong arm anyone standing in their way; will vandalize and spread misinformation and disinformation to the public at large via this medium; whilst playing victim and gaslighting their targets with such underhanded tactics whenever called out on it, using Wikipedia editors and admins to that end, as we see here - and will continue to do so against the public interest and otherwise. This is among the reasons why citation of Wikipedia has been banned in countless schools and tertiary institutions of higher learning throughout the world, and why (despite perceptions of its online predominance) Wikipedia's reputation continues to falter in the real world. However, these assertions here on this page by me are being made for the record. Qalandar303 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because you are continuing to use your talk page to attack editors of a specific religion and are now spouting conspiracy theories, I am revoking your talk page access. Please read WP:UTRS for your options going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- You don't have to tell me that because the word is already out far and wide that only the law of the jungle actually prevails on Wikipedia, and that deep pocketed interest groups and organizations, such as the Haifan Bahais, can and have gamed the system - will muscle out and strong arm anyone standing in their way; will vandalize and spread misinformation and disinformation to the public at large via this medium; whilst playing victim and gaslighting their targets with such underhanded tactics whenever called out on it, using Wikipedia editors and admins to that end, as we see here - and will continue to do so against the public interest and otherwise. This is among the reasons why citation of Wikipedia has been banned in countless schools and tertiary institutions of higher learning throughout the world, and why (despite perceptions of its online predominance) Wikipedia's reputation continues to falter in the real world. However, these assertions here on this page by me are being made for the record. Qalandar303 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Good luck with that argument. You were trying to intimidate other editors, and got blocked for it. Pedantry is not a good tactic for getting unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, per No_legal_threats "That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block..." You may contextualize my statements however you wish, but Wikipedia itself states no line has been crossed because "giving notice" of an ongoing legal investigation by any standard is not the same thing as making a "threat", and so to conflate the two is a fallacy. Furthermore, an investigation in law is never the same thing as a suit brought in law, which once again reinforces the absence of threat because of a clear distinction. Qalandar303 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)