User talk:Kabulbuddha

Democracticly-elected issues[edit]

You might pay attention to ANI and make sure this is addressed. You might also contact User:Nathan_Johnson, who 'closed' the rfc, and help him understand the unanticipated consequences of his words. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that is needed is a consensus amongst editors to use the phrase democratically elected,just need to start a section on the talk page and get votes for that term once that is done then the term can be used. That is what the rfc says.Kabulbuddha (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in that page. I only got involved when the 40 other pages got mass-deleted and then mass-reverted. --HectorMoffet (talk)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Kabulbuddha. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ankh.Morpork 21:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what the purpose of this notice is as I have no email address registered so the chances of you sending me an email would be slim to none. Maybe you would like to explain this notice to me. Thanks.Kabulbuddha (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kabulbuddha, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Kabulbuddha! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, citing a tabloid citing a private letter, is not a reliable source for something that would have many sources if it were true. Pilger's claims did not hold up in court. I've tagged the source on the grounds that it is not a historical book by a Cambodian scholar. Nic Dunlop actually is such a scholar, so please replace Operation Gladio with his book.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is not a tabloid at all,I guess you have never read it or seen one.The book is an academic source and it is relating a story printed in the Guardian a reputable UK newspaper and you are edit waring,which you have done a few times now and I am not going to stand for it.I suggest you revert it back now.Kabulbuddha (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:59, 2 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am unsure what has happened here, I have been editing in good faith and used wikipedia dispute resolutions in my dealings here and now I am being accused of being someone else and have been blocked. Not much else I can say but it is surely unfair but if that is how it works here then so be it. Kabulbuddha (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have already been confirmed by another CheckUser that you are a sockpuppet of Zrdragon12. Unless you're going to give a compelling reason why you should be unblocked, then your talk page and email access will also be revoked. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:14, 2 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your check user has not identified me as anyone else, my IP address is not used by anyone else, your assumptions are wrong but if that is how you work here then so be it,no skin off my nose.I have better things to do than mess around with your BS. This is not a request to be unblocked, I would not come back here if you paid me. Kabulbuddha (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Fine, then. Please don't use the unblock request template for supposedly final rants like this. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2012 (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.