User talk:Jarfow

Violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for ur advice, i fixed it.

You did not fix it. You merely transferred your personal attack to the edit summary. This is unacceptable. NedFausa (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if i ask you to tell me how to say to someone how they are without attack, will you call it an attack to you by me??? please help me know.

Please read the policy that you violated. NedFausa (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

policy is saying asking questions is not attack...

@Jarfow: You posted "such a horrible being u are!!!" and "fascist ppl should be highlighted so they can be banned." Those are not questions. NedFausa (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but next time i only asked question but it went away too... why?

September 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. - hako9 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i read this ---Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. so i made no personal attack

Please use the {{help me}} template appropriately.
The {{help me}} template is for help in using Wikipedia, not for unrelated issues. If you would like to ask such a question, replace the code {{help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{help me}} to reactivate the help request. Alternatively, you can also ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.

It seems you are engaged in a dispute about behavior - something which the {{help me}} template is not intended to be used. Work it out with the other editor on talk pages discussions and, if that fails to work, take it to a noticeboard. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i want to know where it is allowed to ask question.

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Euryalus (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combination of WP:NPA and WP:NOTHERE, evidenced by the three links at the ANI discussion and also most of your edit history. If you think there are grounds for an appeal there's instructions in the template above. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

where i can ask my question?

how to tell a person who is being fascist without attacking? i want to tell them to stop their bad behavior but they are saying i am attacking. how to tell them to stop their bad behaviour ? otherwise they will not let anyone fix the error in the page. is it allowed in this site?

how can you allow this bad behaviour? and you people are not allowing me to complain about these bad users. why???

Your question is how can you call other editors fascist without it being a baseless personal attack? You can't. Be a good idea to stop doing it. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to report bad behaviour of some people but i am now blocked for infinity. why they are stopping me from complaining bad users. they say i am attacking but calling a bad person bad is not attacking. how will they fix their bad behaviour if no one is allowed to tell them to stop. this is a very good example of fascism. Jarfow (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing about this request or your edits suggests to me that the problematic behavior will stop if the block is removed. As such, there are no grounds to remove the block, and I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2020 (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.

What bad behaviour? Making sure the articles aren't full of conspiracy-theory garbage? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That bad behaviour of fixing anything you want without anyone elses permission but stopping other persons to do anything. and how can you say i want to add conspiracy theory ? are you a mind reader ? i wanted to say that you are being bad for your good. so you can know it is wrong to have laws for other people but you can do whatever you want and then block the people who complain against you.

Considering where you showed up, and the constant issue we've had with SSR's fans pushing conspiracy theories and generally refusing to read any explanations given to them, what do you expect me to think other than that you're part of that same group of people trying to insert BLP-violating material or conspiracy theories no source has considered worth reporting on into the article? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tell me what you do, that is not a good example of fascism which is ---characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. i copied it from wiki pedia itself...

You must have missed where it says fascism is ultranationalist and state-focused, neither of which apply here for the obvious reason Wikipedia is not a state and we take a dim view of nationalists. And Wikipedia does not have that rigid of a social structure, or really any social structure as such. As for economy? Wikipedia, again, is not a state. And you bandying about "fascism" is a grievous disservice to the victims of actual fascists. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is what u do... going complete textbook without being practical... i know wikipedia is not europe in 20th century. people use the word now a days automatically understand that now the word means what it ment in the past but removing everything that does not apply in this time.

you did exactly what i told you not to --- dont let yourself fall too deep into gay pride that you stop valuing others . first tell how it means i am afraid of gay people ? i was there in support when you guys fought for equality but i did not know that one day it will turn into a privilege in place of equality. when some people disagree with gay people, they are automatically converted into homophobe. i did not know you people will use it as a trump card against anyone who dis agree with you. does being gay means you can never be wrong? is no one allowed to say anything against gay people if they do something wrong? is this the equality u ppl wanted ???? you just called me homophobe without even knowing me. i once fought with you people for that so-called equality you wanted...

Removed talkpage access as you're simply using it to repeat the kind of personal abuse that got you blocked in the first place. The unblock request remains active, and any admin that chooses to unblock you can restore access to this page as they go. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You actually proved the point that the user was trying to make by blocking her/him. Meg4499 (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created this account about fifteen minutes ago. What brings you to this talkpage as your first edit? -- Euryalus (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this isn't actually my original account as I usually don't involve myself in controversial stuff. I've been noticing the drama that's been going around about the page jarfow guy was talking about. I stopped by because he mentioned something that actually happened with me once in real life about being called homophobic just because my views didn't align with someone who happened to be a homosexual. It was my co-worker but things got sorted in the end and guess what! we're good friends now. We actually discussed a lot about dealing with people who say derogatory things to homosexual people. This guy reminded me of something my co-worker once told me about how people on the internet behaved with him and how they always used this "calling you out doesn't make me homophobic" against him even when they actually made plenty of homophobic comments. Which is why I made the comment. But, to be fair you could have at least asked the poor guy what was it that he wanted to "fix". Meg4499 (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He first showed up on Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. The associated article, plus the article it was forked off of and the article on his apparent girlfriend, are under extended-confirmed (500/30) protection because there are several conspiracy theories swirling around the circumstances of his death, one of the most common of which is "someone murdered him" (and Chakraborty has been one of the people suggested to have done so). The context from his edits is that he wanted the 500/30 protection removed. Given the increased activity on the talk pages, especially from new users who show no understanding of how Wikipedia works or interest in reading the discussions on the page, this would be a serious issue. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 07:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point he was trying to make is that "We should remove the extended-confirmed protection from pages related to SSR and anyone who disagrees with me is subhuman". 500/30 protection is on those pages for a damn good reason', and the last time it was removed it had to be quickly re-instated because people were attempting to push conspiracy theories. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]