User talk:Alpha2211

August 2020
Your recent edits to Talk:2020 Delhi riots could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 12:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I was asking only questions about the article that editors never answered. As a new user i did not the policies and editors misused their long term association with wikipedia to block me. Alpha2211 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My question was why article is blaming only hindus specifically where there are video evidences of direct involvement of a muslim leader. Editors continuously ignored my question. I believed wikipedia is fair place, if new users are blocked for asking questions, that will make it very strict place. Focus should be to answer the question than to highlight policy violation of a new user. Alpha2211 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
--RegentsPark (comment) 12:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Also read WP:MEATPUPPET threatening to enlist help of wiki is against the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Also (if you carry out your threat) wp:spa may be invoked in any report.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

drop it
See WP:JUSTDROPIT and wp:consensus. You have said what you have to say, saying it 15 more times will not wp:bludgeon us into submission. I suggest you move on to other topics.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Note this [] violates both wp:blp and wp:crime, one more comment like that and I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I missed the violation of wp:npa, stop now!Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Salvio 20:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I was asking only questions about the article that editors never answered. As a new user i did not know the policies and editors misused their long term association with wikipedia to block me.

My question was why article is blaming only hindus specifically where there are video evidences of direct involvement of a muslim leader. Editors continuously ignored my question. I believed wikipedia is fair place, if new users are blocked for asking questions, that will make it very strict place. Focus should be to answer the question than to highlight policy violation of a new user. Alpha2211 (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Here on this talk page at 12:31, 16 August 2020 you were warned (by me) about a potential policy violation with a link the the policy in question again at 18:39 (different polices and violations, as well as at 18:46).

On the article talk page you were told about policy and how you were violating it as 12:25, 13:07, 15:07, 16:08, by at three users (including me). Again with links to each policy.

You were given plenty of warning, and asked more then once to read policy.

You need to read those polices (now) and explain how you did not breach them, and/or now will breach them again.Slatersteven (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought some real admin will focus on neutrality of content. Honestly never expected @slatersteven and all others here. You guys just saved my 50$ a month donation to wikipedia. No donation for biasedpedia anymore. My friend told me about totally biased articles here when i told him i donate for a good cause. Even now you focus on policies? Really?? Policies were created for fair encyclopedia. Wikipedia is anyway irrelevant now a days, thanks to guys like you. Never unblock me, even i dont want to ever comeback here. Alpha2211 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course they are there for a fair encyclopedia, because everyone has to obey the same rules. Thus everyone has to meet the same standard, even your opponents. One reason the article is worded the say it is is that the other side also wanted it to "be fair" too. Both sides could not have it fair, because both sides had their own version of what is fair (and many of us might not agree with what you think is "fair" or "true", why does your truth trump ours?). Its why we decided that it was best to rely on uninvolved sources, so as to try and represent the most neutral version of the article we could.


 * If you wish to leave that is your choice, If you wish to stop giving the Wikipedia foundation $50 a month I am sure it will survive the loss of the $50 you have donated since you have been active. The fact however you have (in essence) said you are not going to promise to obey policy in your fight for the truth tells me your loss will not be a net loss to us.


 * If you do change your mind and make a good case as to why you should be unblocked please read WP:NOTDUMB. This is my last word here, we tried to help you edit here, we warned you and I have even advised you how to appeal. No one is to blame for your block but you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)