Welcome TransVannian!

Hello,

please do not use vgmdb, because it is user-submitted and no editorial reviews are performed, please see WP:RS for further information. An acceptable source is Square Enix Music Online or RPGFan. Also bear in mind that the article is currently nominated for removal of its featured status, mainly because of the low-quality sources. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VGMDB is not a trustworthy source, in that it contains suspicious information (eg different playing times). I will post a discussion at WT:VG, where other can decide its reliability. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TransVannian! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Template:Castlevania chronology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.78.204 (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:C: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." From Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook". News organisations do so by using quotation marks and giving textual attribution. Copying and pasting another's words without making it explicitly clear that they are not your own words is plagiarism. Please do some reading on site policy--both here and on Facebook--before acting like an arrogant know-it-all. Thanks, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:C. Whether or not you like copyrights is entirely irrelevant. Site policy and the law preclude that. If you violate copyrights here, you will be blocked. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so you—who came to my talk page accusing me in the most aggressive and condescending tones of being "irresponsible", "lazy", and "stupid" in my editing—are going to claim persecution. Lovely. Normally I'm not unfriendly to newbies here, but when someone like you—with <.01% of my edit count and barely over a month of editing experience—tries to tell me that I need to "think twice before editing next time", I'm not going to mince words.

Telling you that you will be blocked if you violate copyrights is not a threat, it's a statement of fact. That is a red-line site policy. If I had said "I'm going to block you", then that would be a threat. It would also be a lie, as I am not an administrator and am unable to block other users.

This nonbelieving "sinner" would like to direct your attention to Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. If you conduct yourself in a respectful fashion here, then you can expect the same in return. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I acted to the letter of site legal policy, and I need not make excuses for that. For your information, I am one of the primary contributors to articles here pertaining to the Syrian war (even created two of them), to speak nothing of my activities elsewhere online and in real life, so your immature posturing seems quite silly. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said—you have no idea of anything that I have done in real life. Run along, now. Go do something productive with your time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hell TransVannian,

I want to say a belated thank you for searching references and adding them in List of Castlevania media, and, most importantly, for rescuing the list from demotion. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is an absolutely disgraceful edit summary, and totally inappropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that Wikipedia is a 'free speech' area of some sort. It is not, see for example WP:Free speech. There are various circumstances in which your edits and edit summaries can be not just deleted but suppressed so that no one but Administrators, or in some cases not even Administrators, can see them. Talk page guidelines are at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines but although your edit was reverted, it was quickly replaced with an apology saying that it was a mistake. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I.understand there's not total free speech like I can't state any personal opinions here. I'm sorry I probably shouldn't have made that comment in the edit summary. Still the comment was outrageous at all. Some users on Wikipedia have a habit of raking up controversy. TransVannian (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that multiple Wikipedians took issue with what you said, I think it's fair to say that your comment was outrageous, irrelevant and inappropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying like the majority is always right. A comment is outrageous when it is made to defame somebody or is grossingly cruel which I never was. You better check your definitions first. Yes it was irrelevant but not immoderate or outrageous because seriously you do not even know the meaning of outrageous. You should stop picking on the things of past. If I would have been able to insert everything I wanted to say in the exit summary you could not even have gotten a chance to rake up such a controversy. Unfortunately the word limit proved to be a blockade. Till now you have been saying the same thing again and again and you have not discussed much about the main thing that is inserting the victim's Name. And anyway can I ask what happened with a single comment? It's not like I've committed a crime. I suggest you stop playing this blame game and improve your behavior. You're acting just like those corrupt politicians who started playing blame game against each other. From your comments it appears that you have no intention of improving the article. It appears that you are not allowing the name to be inserted because you think it will insult the victim's memory. Let me tell you again Wikipedia is not a place for your, mine or anyone's personal opinion. Wikipedia rules and policies must be strictly followed. And in this case since the victim's name is verified and there is permission from the family her name should be inserted in the article. I'll prefer a consensus first but you should give reasonable explanations if you want to oppose the inclusion. If you keep on giving unreasonable or baseless explanations I'll have to ask for admin action. Remember the requirements for including her name have already been met.I respect the victim because I myself have an elder sister and can understand a little bit of the difficulties women and girls have to face in daily life. TransVannian (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on your edit but would you mind not leaving edit summaries about edit warring when there is none (as here). Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a note to say that you don't have to keep warnings on your talk page. You're perfectly within your rights to remove the warnings and ask The Banner not to reinstate them. Regards, --regentspark (comment) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I should thank you for that. A user earlier said that I cannot remove them. Some of the policies can be easily understood but some are hard to comprehend. I should say that I am confused somewhat now. But still warnings are mentioned nowhere in removable content of a user's own talk page. TransVannian (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is known anyway. But please by aware that you are not allowed to remove parts of my talkpage. The Banner talk 20:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha before you were reinsering the warning again and again. You were obviously picking advantage of me not having complete knowledge about this. You've shown your true colours. TransVannian (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, in fact this is not a policy case. It is just not-done to remove them as it can give other the idea that you are a good boy. But on the other hand you found it perfectly okay to remove parts of my edits on my talkpage. Sounds a bit like a double standard, TV. The Banner talk 20:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I did not know about that either. You incorrectly said that I have given.up and also called this a game. I thought that I could remove incorrect comments but I was wrong. TransVannian (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove comments on your own talk page, as long as you don't use the comment field for false accusations and personal attacks, as you did. Standard procedure it to get them archived in a subpage, not destroy them. I can set up an automatic archive-bot for you, when you desire that. The Banner talk 09:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TransVannian. You have new messages at TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 05:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I did not make any personal attacks rather it was Lukeno94 making personal attacks against me but I still have been civil and second of all you can't block me since you're not an administrator. Only adminstrators can block other users. TransVannian (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You said "Stop with your lying". Thats a Personal Attack.

I never said I would block you. But any admin can, and probably will, if you continue with attacks. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously it doesn't even make sense. This statement is not a personal attack. It is said when someone believes the other person is lying. I don't know why this has to be explained even? Even a kid understands that. Also here I'm not personally attacking you but I am merely stating that it is the truth. Anyone understands why one person will make this statement to other because he believes that person is lying. Same was this case and this is the reason why I said it. Do you still think it's a personal attack. A personal attack is when I would have deliberately insulted someone or passed vulgar comments which I never did. TransVannian (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PA first. That is a personal attack on Wikipedia, regardless of whether you believe it or not. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says you must have serious evidence to.back up if you make statements like these. If you don't then it is a personal attack. There is a lot of evidence. First he said that the family didn' t grant permission which I proved untrue although later my statement was proved untrue. But before presenting the BBC source had said that family didn't grant permission three times. When he had made this statement for the first timr on the article's talk page ie. when the discussion first started me and Gandydancer proved him wrong but he still kept saying thing without any proof. The BBC proof was presented much later and before that even he didn't know about the proof. Also he said even the volunteer is against me while actually the volunteer said that it is a short community consensus and I should take a wider community consensus. Until then I should not include the name. He didn't say that I can never include the name since the consensus involved a few users he said to take a wider consenus which includes many more users. As you see I do have proof. TransVannian (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence that that the father did not request publication and there is evidence that some British sources misquoted the father turning his opinion 180 degrees. So, your "evidence" is at best flimsy. The Banner talk 18:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly said before the evidence was made available. Before that he himself didn't know if the family had not granted permission. There's nothing flimsy in what I said since I'm talking about the time before he presented the BBC article as a proof. TransVannian (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide diffs when they are needed that is to an admin. I already told you to stay away didn't I Lukeno? This is your last chance so you're advised not to use vulgar words in your comments anywhere on Wikipedia. You already know what I'm referring to. And when I say don't comment it means don't comment at all on my talk page. This is the final warning. There's a limit to everything. TransVannian (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and now it is time to come with proof. No more stories or deletions of unwelcome messages. Proof. Sources. Evidence! The Banner talk 20:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, they may delete messages from their own talk page, though they may not do so if it changes the context of the conversation. That is, pulling messages from the middle of a thread is not acceptable. TransVannian, be careful with what you wish for, since the last message you deleted here was in fact from an admin, RegentsPark, who gave you a warning as well. If I were that admin, I might block you for continued disruption. Please be more careful and more courteous. Thank you.

I did not realize it was him since the comment was not signed. I thought it was Lukeno94. And also as he asked I already provided a proof. TransVannian (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:TransVannian. Thank you. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks and for non-collaborative edits. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I haven't been given a fair chance to explain myself. Also Lukeno94 has used vulgar and uncivil words like bullshit and fuck's sake in his comments and also commented on my page multiple times even after told not to. Why hasn't he been blocked? This block is unfair. Also I am new to Wikipedia so don't know how things work around here. But that doesn't mean I'm disruptive. I don't know how else to talk with others but that doesn't mean I'm uncivil or a anything. Also there is nothing in the way I talk. I request the administrators to unblock me.

Decline reason:

Per comment below, and because 24 hours isn't long to stay away. Read the policies and learn how to not be disruptive. Peridon (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2013 (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.

You have been given enough to chances to explain yourself. And you have been warned often enough that your behaviour is disruptive and (close to) harassment. So don't play the poor innocent guy. The Banner talk 09:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing innocent I am innocent and you know that too. I'm going to take action against the admin for abusing his power after the discussion is closed and request his adminstrator status be removed. Anyway we shouldn't let this temporary ban get in the way of discussion. Please carry on the discussion ie., if anyone is posting anymore comments on DRN about that topic. TransVannian (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No maybe not because if I try to I'll be just turned away on the excuse that my case cannot be considered valid since I was disruptive. There's no point in trying to make a ANI report against an admin no matter what I think or believe. If I can't convincingly prove it then I better keep my comments and claims to myself. I'll keep that in mind. Also it's discouraging to see that my unblock was turned away because 24 hours isn't a long time. TransVannian (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see the discussion has already closed. I'll ask for RfC later on the article talk page. TransVannian (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was very disappointed to see that your first action after being unblocked was to gratuitously put the victim's name up again in a section header on the talk page, without bothering to seek consensus.[2] This was an unnecessary, pointless disruption. If any administrators are still watching here, it may already be time for a second block.

As a side note, I've noticed that you spend a lot of time lecturing other users, including me, about proper Wikipedia procedure, but that whenever you're confronted about your bad behavior, you claim you're a new user and unfamiliar with policies. I hope you realize that you can't have it both ways. If you're new, you should calm down, learn, and discuss with others. Instead you seem to determined to tell off everyone you meet--you're even swearing revenge against the admin who blocked you. This strategy convinces no one, and will not get you very far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you thought you were doing with this edit--you didn't use an edit summary--but obviously, you shouldn't remove comments from the RfC because you disagree with them. [3] I've restored it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RFC comments can only be posted in Threaded Discussion section. Survey section is only for vote. That's the reason why I removed it and posted it where it should be. TransVannian (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. The Banner talk 12:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for one week for disruptive editing at Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case. You edit-warred over the RfC statement, arguably violating policy by your wording of the RfC. Then, you exacerbated the situation by twice removing legitimate comments from the talk page by another user. If you wish to request an unblock, please see WP:GAB.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments cannot be posted in Survey section according to WP:RFC and not the Threaded discussion section. Anyway you should have discussed this with another admin and asked me before blocking me. If I was doing something wrong you should have instead told me that I should not have done that instead of straight away blocking me that too for a week. TransVannian (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statements at WP:RFC are suggestions, not mandates. You are acting like you own the RfC and the talk page and, no matter what anyone else thinks, you can control it. The first time you removed Banner's comment, you didn't move it anywhere else. You just deleted it (and without an edit summary). Only the second time did you move it. Even then, you were edit-warring over the issue, which is unacceptable. All of your behavior comes right after a block involving similar issues, which is why I lengthened the block as you don't appear to have learned anything from the previous one. Nor should you require new warnings from me before being blocked. You got enough warnings from other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not discussion, it was a comment about the validity of the RfC after you had changed the wording. You can't chance the wording of an RfC significantly while the RfC is running. What you did was censorship to protect your altered RfC. The Banner talk 12:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the block. Edit warring to include the name of the victim in an RfC asking whether the name should be included or not is about as disruptive as it gets. Add removing of comments to this ...! TransVannian, you can appeal your block but I suggest a very careful read of WP:GAB before you formulate a request or make further comments here. You're skating on very thin ice here. --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(triple EC) If it "helps", I would have also blocked you, for at least the same amount of time. There is simply no justification for your reintroduction of that name, especially when you've been told that it's probably a WP:BLP violation and that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages. Even one more violation of this matter will result in an indefinite block of this account. I'm going to give you an inordinate amount of AGF here, and offer that you're still not understanding a basic fact: we do not follow the same rules as the BBC or any other news organization. In some cases are rules are stricter in what we allow, and some cases more loose. In this case, until you can get an unambiguously clear consensus that including the name is not a WP:BLP violation, it cannot appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't User:Lukeno94 and User:Khazar2 the ones who first changed the wording? And weren't you and Khazar the one who removed the name and censored me? It was you and him who was edit warring over changing the heading. User:Bbb23 you should have blocked them. I ask you to unblock me right now and do the right thing. Also please read that banner above my talk page. It says the editor is new and to assume good faith. TransVannian (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, I didn't edit war; I changed the header once, and when you reverted me, I left it. I believe the same is true of Luke.

Second, it's fine that you're new and don't know the policies yet--we all have to start somewhere. But since you don't know what you're doing yet, you should avoid aggressive behaviors like deleting talk page comments, lecturing other users on their talk pages, questioning the motives of other editors, and edit-warring. It's like you're yelling at your coworkers on your first day at a new job that they don't know what they're doing. Instead, why not spend that time asking questions, observing, and learning how you can contribute? There's plenty of editors who would be happy to help--the key is to ask instead of attack. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transvannian, whether you're new or not, once you are told something, but multiple different editors, we expect you to learn and then behave appropriately. You were clearly told that use of the name anywhere on Wikipedia is a violation of policy, but were also told that starting an RfC was okay. After that, right after your last block expired, you added the name again. That means that either 1) you don't have the competence to follow instructions after policy has been explained to you, or 2) you simply don't care, and are going to insist on doing things your way. Also, as Khazar2 pointed out, many many times you told editors with much more experience than yourself that they were breaking WP policies. Again, you cannot have it both ways: you can't use the "new user" defense when you do bad stuff, and also lecture others about the details of complex policies. So take this week to actually read some of these policies. Examine them. And look at the advice that others have given you in the DRN and look at how consensus is currently trending in the RfC. Consider that, and, if you have questions, ask. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do any edit-warring because only I have the right to change the heading of RfC filed by me. I changed it somewhat but not significantly because I earlier did not read the BBC source completely. I only read till the line he denied granting any permission. After that it will also be written the name was not revealed in the article. It was my fault that I did such foolishness. After I realized there was no such statement in that article this means that the name might be true. So I thought it will be better to remove unproven from that the heading since the name might be real but the word unproven is still there is summary since it is somewhat unproven. You blocked me for such a small matter? Your block is not even.valid. Please unblock me now. This is simply not right. They made comments on my talk page even after they were told not to bug you allowed them to go scot-free. What is this? TransVannian (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay last chance: are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you simply lacking in WP:COMPETENCE? You weren't blocked because of the victims/unproven bit, you were blocked because you used the name. The same name you were told never to use on Wikipedia until after there was a consensus to use it. Seriously, either admit that what you did was egregiously wrong, or just walk away and wait out the block. If you think that the three of us admins and the other editors who've already commented here are wrong, then post a new unblock request. If not, there's nothing more that can be accomplished here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Lukeno94 saying there's not much problem with using it elsewhere on Wikipedia. He only said I shouldn't use it on the article's talk page and the article. Also there is no policy that prevents me from using the name fro.using it for discussion purposes. That means I can even include it on the talk page. After the block expires I will report about you, Lukeno94, The Banner and Bbb23 at ANI and won't even mince a word. Additionaly I don't want to hear anything from you anymore Qwyrxian. Stop commenting on my talk page block or not. TransVannian (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses, excuses, but still you show complete disrespect for the victim and her family. The request for her father and of many people here was don't use her name. And you go on and on with mentioning her name. And you will go on and on receiving blocks for that... Please, start showing some sense, consideration and respect, otherwise a permanent block is not far away! The Banner talk 16:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses? Excuse me Wikipedia is no place to respect others. If you didn't know I'm telling you now. I'm not being blocked because I disrespected her it was because the consensus decided against including her name anywhere. I have every right to an RfC. Also for the final time including her supposed name isn't a disrespect. If you want to talk about context then you're welcome but if you just wanna lecture me about if I respect her or not then please refrain from making any comments here because enough's enough. TransVannian (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you enough. When you plain refuse to listen to my advice, you have to deal with the consequences. Your choice. The Banner talk 17:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I was wrong. To ever let you comment at all on my talk page after telling you to stop commenting on my talk page. Now please stay away from my talk page completely unless you wanna talk about context. Additionally I think I shouldn't bar users completely from my talk page atleadt those who want to have a serious discussion. I apologize to Lukeno94 for telling him to stay away. Telling others to stay away is not a good thing to do. Lukeno94 you are wholeheartedly welcome to make comments on my talk page but only if you want to discuss about context. I request you to please refrain from saying whether I respect the victim or not or talking about my conduct. TransVannian (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not appealing against unblock because earlier too I was blocked on unreasonable grounds and wasn't granted unblock when I requested and I know I won't be granted again. Atleast the first time an unblock should be granted. Using unblock request again and again is against policy anyway. Also I did nothing wrong. It is the admin who should apologize and unblock me. He should know that he cannot just go ahead and block me. It is a blatant abuse of power. He needs to warn for the first time. I ask him again to unblock me and correct his mistake. TransVannian (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The admin had good grounds for a block. There is no rule or policy why an unblock should be granted. And perhaps this is new for you: every admin can block you when (s)he thinks it is necessary to protect the encyclopaedia! The Banner talk 20:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I came here to ask you to redact your mention of the name of the victim on my talk page. You used it twice. Since I see that you are blocked, I will redact it myself, and ask an administrator to revdel. By the way, I oppose any unblock in this situation, as you seem determined to forge ahead against consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not forging ahead against any consensus. I'm simply asking for consensus by those users who are uninvolved and it was the volunteer at DRN who advised it. Also if you don't want the name on your talk page you have every right to remove it. TransVannian (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply can't remove the name from your talk page since I am blocked. I can only edit my talk page. I hope you understand. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of my block I won't be able to close the discussion even if I will want to. It is possible that I might like to close the discussion before the block has expired. First I'll like to ask if it is legal according to Wikipedia policies to have someone close the discussion on your behalf. Secondly will someone be willing to act on my behalf if I'll like to. It will be a great help. But first of course I'll like to know if it's legal at all? Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC should actually be closed by an uninvolved user, if that's what you mean. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. But still it can be closed if RfC users agree to end it. If I along with other participants agree to end it before the block will somebody act on my behalf and put my vote in case I agree? Not now but might be later. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the RfC is declared invalid (due to altering of the question) I prefer to let this RfC run its course. Most likely it will give a clear answer on the question if a victims name should be mentioned, especially when requested not to do so. No matter what the outcome is, it delivers a clear community consensus that mr. TV can't ignore. The Banner talk 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least until it is changed significantly changed it will not be declared invalid. The topic is still the same that is including the unproven name and I've still included unproven in summary. The only reason why I removed unproven from heading is because it might be true and there might be a possibilty in future somebody might prove it true. It will never be declared invalid irrespective of what you say. TransVannian (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. This edit is so far out of order that I don't believe we have any other choice than to prevent you from editing Wikipedia until you clearly realise what the problem is and that you will not continue along such a route. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

This isn't right. I should get a chance to explain myself. Lukeno94 is wrong that I am wikilawyering. I simply mentioned the wrong policy. However now I have corrected my mistake and inserted the correct policy. Also I never inserted the victim's name after I realized that it is against rules. Yes I was told again and again but at that time I thought they were making things up. It is simply a case of misunderstanding. Also I have always been civil. Your block in unjust. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

I can't imagine any scenario where you could possibly be unblocked without agreeing to just stop all editing related to the Delhi gang rape case. I e -certainly don't consider this request to be the least bit compelling as you seem to have no idea why your edits are inappropriate no matter how many times it is explained to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2013 (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.

I only edited the talk page. I never edited the article. Also WP:BDP says not adding questionable material related to recently deceased victim of a gruesome crime has an extension of two years. I will simply not give in to your unjust demands because it is other users who are violating Wikipedia policies. I will not stand for this. If you do not want to unblock me then I am not going to apologise. If you unblock me then I will add the name to the article as unproven. However if I am not unblocked then you have my word I will never edit Wikipedia at all not even as an IP address or fake account.. Simply because it is wrong. Unlike some I am not a hypocrite. I will never give in to your unjust demands of staying completely away from the article. I will not post any comments on talk page you have my word. But not letting me add the name after two years will be gross violation of Wikipedia policies. I will not give in this injustice rather I will quit editing Wikipedia permanently. Consider this as my resignation letter. TransVannian (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're totally, and completely, missing the point. WP:BDP is not the point here, as it applies to identifiable people. In this case we don't have the provable name of the victim, and thus any such edit would fail WP:V, and would be removed again. Adding it as "unproven" is also not viable - imagine, for example, if we added "this person is an unproven criminal" to a biographical article - it would be removed whether that person were alive or not. We do want to unblock you - to do this you simply have to agree not to add this information to the article. Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was going to add it as the name of the victim. This is what my edit with name was actually going to be -

"Earlier while some sources reported the name of the victim to be -------- , however later the Indian media reported that the father never gave permission to reveal the name putting the credibility of the name under question."

Also you are saying WP:BDP applies only to "identifiable people". However, I can't find anything like this is in the WP:BLP. I hope you understand that I only work according to proof. If you somehow proved that WP:BDP only applies to identifiable people I would immediately retract my statement and apologize since it would simply be a case of misunderstanding on my part. Please provide the link and the statement from the article which can prove that I am wrong. Also I was never going to article till the distant future. Believe me I actually have no interest in adding the victim's name or fighting for to add it or indulging in conflict with others. I am only working according to Wikipedia policies. If users would have been able to prove me wrong I would have immediately accepted my mistake.

Believe me I want to work harmonically with others and I have no bad intentions. That's why unlike them, I didn't report them about at ANI even though I wanted to. I mostly stayed focused at the discussion about the name because I thought they are misunderstanding me. Also hope you don't mind but, but I haven't actually disrupted anything. A real disruption would be if I kept edit warring and kept on adding the name. However when I realized there was a policy for not including it I later removed it myself from the title of the RfC. 117.214.158.11 (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, let's be clear - do you agree that you will not add that name to the article at any time and in any form? If so, I will unblock you. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this sounds like a fairytale, TransVannian. You were accusing everybody of misunderstanding every policy under the sun and now you claim not to have known a policy? The Banner talk 11:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I had more info on policies than yo. I myself have said multiple times that I am new and might not know or understand policies completely so in case I don't please help me. Basically realting to policies I think I am maybe somewhat on the same level as you. I don't want to blame you but I don't see even a single time you or other user helped me in that matter. You just kept saying I didn't respect the victim and that too without any proof which amounts to personal insult. The discussion are a proof of what I am saying. I'll just say it honestly again, yes I did not know the policy and there is some probability I still might not have understood the policies clearly. But I only work on proof and according to policies. Also Black Kite, I'm sorry but till you can prove your statement that "WP:BDP applies only to identifiable people" I cannot retract my statement. I am not doing this because of pride or anything, I'm just doing it because it is wrong to ignore a policy because others might not agree with it. I hope you understand but this matter is related to Wikipedia policy and unless I am proved wrong I cannot say that I won't edit the article. Not unblocking me because of that is not fair at all. TransVannian (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous other editors have agreed that adding that name anywhere on Wikipedia is a violation of policy. How can all of them be wrong and you be right, when you've just stated above that you might not know or understand policies well as a new user? At this point, my opinion is that we can never trust an unblock here. You have been given the option to edit all of Wikipedia except for the addition of a single name which may or may not even be accurate. And you've refused to agree to our policies, and consider the chance to add this one name to be more important than any other possible editing you could do on Wikipedia. This indicates you are not actually here to build an encyclopedia, but, instead are here to push a specific piece of information. Given this admission, I don't see how you can ever be unblocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another fairytale, Transvannia. Or is this just a dream? The Banner talk 15:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If users think adding the name even after expiry of arbitrary time limit is a violation of policy then there must be e some proof in case they are right. However, they haven't provided any proof. Just because majority says it's right it doesn't mean it's right. A consensus is not only about vote it it also takes in consideration every point and counterpoint. A consensus is not all powerful. Many edits on Wikipedia are completely independent of consensus. There is no policy that says a consensus can stop any reliable info from being added. Some info can be stopped from being added but not all info. If users think that even after time limit expiration they will not let add the name to be added then it is clearly them who are violating Wikipedia rules and policy. Also do you really think I'm liking this or enjoying this conflict? I don't even want it but I can't let users blatantly violate policies because of their personal opinions. I'm no finger-pointing but frankly that's the truth. Also I wonder why you are not saying anything to The Banner even though he has mocked me twice. He's saying that I am dreaming or that all I am doing is a fairy tale. I request you to stop him from doing this. It amounts to personal insult. Unlike what you are saying User:Qwyrxian I am here to build the encyclopaedia however personal opinion of some users is preventing me from doing that. TransVannian (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to edit other Wikiedia articles. I'f I say honestly I'm getting tired of arguing over adding the name even though what I am doing is right. I would like to move on to editing and discussing other topics especially since I don't like editing news event and crime event articles. However I cannot do that at cost of letting Wikipedia policies be violated. TransVannian (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You've shown not the slightest interest in learning what policies actually are. What you do is read part of them, and then make up the rest of them to suit your needs. That you cannot understand why adding an unproven name of a person into an article is problematic is utterly astounding, and shows you are not competent enough to contribute. And the fact that you're attacking people left right and centre doesn't help either. Carrying on with your crusade like this is likely to get your talk page access revoked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I say that you are dreaming? That is you problem, TransVannian! You read things that are not there while you ignore every rule that you think is incompatible with your POV. And you clearly announce that you will continue with your campaign. So, let me finish with this: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. That is a policy everybody should understand, including you. And I have no moral restraints to use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations to verify each and every occasion that I have the idea that you are back with another identity. The Banner talk 20:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"But not letting me add the name after two years will be gross violation of Wikipedia policies. I will not give in this injustice rather I will quit editing Wikipedia permanently."

Let me get this right. Because you can't make this one edit, because the community has decided not to include the victim's name, you are taking a "my way or I quit" attitude? Editing on Wikipedia is done by consensus, we discuss changes, in the light of Wikipedia guidelines, and come to some sort of agreement that most people can live with. Wikipedia is about collaboration and you've shown that you are intransigent and inflexible. Wikipedia policies do NOT support one editor deciding what is "true" and going against every other editor.

The deeper question is why this ONE edit matters so much to you, that you obsess about it and it has led to you being blocked (twice) because you insist on including this detail to the article. Why do you care so much? There are millions of other articles you could spend time improving, why not move on to work that is less controversial, where you can make a real contribution by working with other editors to create something wonderful....instead of choosing not to back down on this one edit? It just doesn't make sense. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you will not agree to the unblock conditions, I have locked this talkpage. If you wish to appeal your block, please do so by using the Unblock Request System. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that TransVannian's attempt to appeal the block via UTRS (by me) was also declined as it was essentially a reiteration of the lack of clue regarding policy shown in the unblock request and subsequent discussion on this page. This, combined with the fact that they clearly state their intent to restore the name based on an incomprehensible misrepresentation of WP:BDP, makes it evident that they should remain blocked as a protective measure. The sole remaining avenue of appeal is BASC.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]