ONEDHARMA
Indefinitely blocked edit
I have blocked you indefinitely as it appears you have either no intent or no capability to interact with others according to our principles of constructive engagement of others. I have come to this conclusion because you have continued your uncivil conduct after release of your previous block, and have embarked on both WP:TE and WP:BATTLE approach to editing. In general, WP:COMPETENCE. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
ONEDHARMA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
your reason here What are wikipedias rules? The sikhhistory admin attacked my identity, stated how he doesn't want MY interpretation of HIS pov, on his wikipage he states a biased position of which most mods seem to accept, or trivialise. You have an editor who stated my additions and changes where biased, i proved it wasnt by citing the references, with ISBN, i proved his own articles breach wiki rules, NPOV, OR, RELIABILITY. The sikhhistory admin clearly breaches every rule in wikipedia, but the mods seem quite okay with that. The sikhhistory admin has a clear agenda to stop my additions by defaming my character. Stated many times how i have no interest in becoming a 'Wikipedia employee', the funny thing is wikipedia serves as a tool of information, so its own rules on such information SHOULD be of the highest priority for MODS and EDITORS, yet most seem to group together to protect their own postions. Now you block me again, for what?..Critiquing someones work? lol...Judging an editor who states he openly biased lol.I provide the ISBN, the references, i proved with out a doubt that sikhhistory EDITOR is abusing wikipedia by making sure it protects and promotes his point of view, what do i get another ban..lol.....AT least you made me laugh at the IRONY!! of it all. :). Now do i want you to remove my ban??....Well if you think that their is an editor SIKHHISTORY who protects his baised, one sided, approach , then attacks my identity when he doesnt want another pov added, then he accuses me of harrassment, and wait for it, You dont address the fact you have an editor that BREACHS wikrules, not one mods rules, or another mods rule who have let the sense of power get to them, but wikipedias rules. It seems like many mods on here, and editors, have brought their own personal issues, traits, characters into assessing what is biased, what acts breach rules. I think the mods and edits want people to grovel, plead, say please at every moment, to lower oneself to the point of begging. lol.. Even the content in this comment doesnt take away from the fact that sikhhistory edits pages to protect his biased one sided point of view, but like one editor told me, its more like a boys club than a source of information. Peace! and its shame that SIKHHISTORY didnt respond to refs i identified and the synthesis he carried out, but im sure he made effort to get me blocked! ONEDHARMA (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Another wall of text unblock request like this and I'll disable your talkpage access; read WP:GAB. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 26 April 2012 (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.
ONEDHARMA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
your reason hereOther than that, you may freely tell me that some guideline is a "fucking pain in the goddamned ass", or that my work was "a fucking pile of goddamn shit" as long as you have a reason why you think so- personal attacks don't bother me if they are made discussing a legitimate issue. I have no aversion to swearing myself, so don't post anything about me (or anything else, for that matter) that you wouldn't want to hear me say about you (obviously, warnings and the like are exempt from this). I will use your posts as the threshold for any particular conversation- if you ask me to tone down my language, I also have no objections.....So if you read my comments, and not just fob it off as large chunks, its not, it was a critique of Sikhhistory admin, which i dont think crosses the rules does it>? to question a biased, one sided article, please oh sire give me your judgement..lol....i was gona swear as you state its okay, but i im gona go because it would be out of character for me, whereas you define breach of rules as upsetting someone who is sensitive or identifying when an editor has breached wikirules, its funny because my responses have contained numerous refereences, citations, quotes, you know evidence. But i guess thats another matter right!lol..and i dont know when it happened but it seems like using capital letters to hightlight issues is now on par with pulling out a gun. ONEDHARMA (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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 thought your previous unblock request was the most incoherent one I'd ever seen, until I saw the second one. I'm not sure why you feel the need to quote the notice atop my talkpage here, I don't see how it's relevant at all. But I'll let another admin handle this unblock request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That Was Clever.....NOT!! edit
Dear Onedharma, you are showing yourself to be a childish. In Sikhi we talk about Gurmatta (consensus). You obviously do not understand this basic concept. You have shown yourself to be such a great Sikh. We are not worthy, and bow down to your enlightened viewpoint. Thanks SH 19:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)