JBDVIJASDVI

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Assam-type House

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Assam-type House, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.weegy.com/?ConversationId=6DB8D276.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Eleven Jinping

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, JBDVIJASDVI. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Eleven Jinping, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —Swpb^talk 19:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Your recent editing history at Sheena Bora murder case shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are at or beyond the 3 revert limit. If you continue to revert poorly sourced material about a living person (WP:BLP violation), you will probably end up blocked. You need to STOP the reverting and use the article talk page to discuss and get consensus before reverting again. Ravensfire (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sheena Bora murder case. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, you've been alerted to the fact that you're violating our policy on biographies of living persons. —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 23 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

The article Sheena Bora murder case has been edited lately in a prejudiced and biased manner terming and describing some living person as "murderer" citing various sources. But the case is under police investigation and not proved in court. If terming some living person as Stalker attracts our policy on biographies of living persons , how come terming and describing some living person as Murderer does not attract the same policy. This article is all about a case and not about a person. Allegations from all sides to be quoted to have a NPOV which is my intention. Other editors who have termed and described some living person as murderer have escaped leaving the article in a biased and prejudice state and the current reporter of edit warring is a part of that team. My edits in this article are referenced and can't be said poorly sourced.JBDVIJASDVI (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

WP:BLP applies to information and claims made about living persons in all articles. I really don't care about your content dispute; you will need to address the behavior that resulted in this block. I see no exemption to our edit warring policy. Kuru (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2015 (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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JBDVIJASDVI reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: ). Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

No request offered

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, I was just thinking how to remove the headline Request reason appearing above because I am not making any request. Since Wiki is a mass editable and readable public document, my concern is that no slanderous, prejudicial, hypocritical, biased, vested interest and propaganda should be promoted and retained in articles covering any sensitive issue concerning any living or dead person who are ironically blocked from defending or unaware of it. And I am not obsessed in editing. JBDVIJASDVI (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sheena Bora murder case. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sheena Bora murder case. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sheena Bora murder case, you may be blocked from editing. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:31, 29 October 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is no reason that I should make an appeal or you should unblock me. My interest with this wiki disappeared long ago as I clearly understood that vested interest parties are running paid propaganda and converted this into nothing but an electronic trash. Wiki laws and thousands of rules, its self indemnification of irresponsibility of contents etc are no excuse for running a propaganda business anywhere in the world from the safe heaven of wherever wiki proprietors and their militia of administrators are and that wiki is/was blocked in Russia/China is/was aptly justified. Kick you on the ass wiki , get lost from my view. And take this and keep it as another bit of useful information JBDVIJASDVI (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — foxj 02:10, 31 October 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Do you see nobody is now updating this article when Peter Mukerjea is arrested in this case. I repeat "The article Sheena Bora murder case has been edited lately in a prejudiced and biased manner from day one and wiki will be sued for facilitating & indulging in propaganda. I need not be unblocked." JBDVIJASDVI (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked until you withdraw any threats of legal action - see WP:NLT. I am not commenting on the editing of the article in question as it is irrelevant to your blocking. Peridon (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Well, Peridon, if you can read, I said no need. I have already blocked www.en.wikipedia.org on atleast 80 computers at different places that I put hands onto since 23rd September, 2015 using Content Advisor settings with passwords that I don't exactly remember now and probably keep on doing that till I take legal action. JBDVIJASDVI (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Good luck with your Internet-lawyering. It always goes well. In the meantime, your talk page access has been revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 20 November 2015 (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.