Br Ibrahim john
Br Ibrahim john, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Br Ibrahim john! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia!I'm Suneye1, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts: |
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
December 2020
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies as I haven't added the citation. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 19
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Patriarchs of the Church of the East, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Thomas. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
An article aid request
editI see you are interested in topics related to Christianity in Kerala and Syriac Christianity. I feel the that there should be an article about the Latin Catholics of Kerala. Could you help me in that. As I'm new here I'm not an expert in these... Micahhadar (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Micahhadar, welcome. Currently, there is an article (Catholic Church in India) which mostly deals with the Latin Church in India. However, as you have expressed, there is no separate article for the Latin Catholic Church in Kerala. This can be due to a number of reasons like:
- The hierarchical structure of the Latin Church in India is closely related to the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI). There is no such authoritative body peculiar to the Latin Church in Kerala.
- The Latin Church hierarchy in Kerala comprises of two separate Archdioceses, namely the Archdiocese of Trivandrum and the Archdiocese of Verapoly. Therefore there is no centralised Latin Church hierarchy in Kerala.
- However, there is The KERALA REGIONAL LATIN CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ COUNCIL (KRLCBC) that comprises all the bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces of Verapoly and Trivandrum (Latin Rite).
- (1) Verapoly Archdiocese, (2) Calicut, (3) Cochin, (4) Kannur, (5) Kottapuram, (6) Sultanpet, (7) Vijayapuram.
- (1) Trivandrum Archdiocese, (2) Alleppey, (3) Neyyatinkara, (4) Punalur, (5) Quilon.
- Therefore, a separate article can be created for Latin Church in Kerala. Although, it may not contain more information than what is provided in the article for Catholic Church in India, it may help in giving an emphasis on this particular Church of Kerala.
- If you are still interested in creating an article on this subject, I am ready to give you every help from my part.
Br Ibrahim john (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually I am emphasising on the Latin Catholic community in Kerala. I mean it forms an ethnic group which is clearly differentiated from the Saint Thomas Syrian Christians of Kerala. Even though just 13% of Christians in Kerala are Latin Catholic, they are differentiated from the other Catholics. People may get misinformed that they are a different community different from the East Syriac Syro Malabar Church. Micahhadar (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Micahhadar, yes, now I totally understand the point you are trying to make. However, the Latin Christian community in Kerala is largely multi-ethnic (just like anywhere else in India), in contrast to the Saint Thomas Christians. Historically, the early members of the community in Kerala were Saint Thomas Christians who switched to Latin Rite Catholicism. Their history is somewhat complicated. If you have the content for a new article and sources to verify, a great article can be created out of it.
Br Ibrahim john (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Br Ibrahim john, Actually aren't Latin Catholics of Kerala Mukkuvar and Nadar Christians converted to Christianity by the Portuguese. And few Saint Thomas Christians also had joined them. Currently I am lacking any sources. Just what I've heard about these. I will try finding sources. Could you also join to find reliable sources.... I'm just familiarising myself here!!! Micahhadar (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Micahhadar, Latin Christians cannot be reduced to some specific communities. There were fishermen, Nadars (Shanars), Nairs, Dalits, and other groups among those who converted to Latin Christianity. In addition to this, there is significant number of Saint Thomas Christians who converted into the community, especially in the district of Ernakulam.
Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I mean all these things I've heard from people. But I was not able to find great sources. Could you help me find sources???? Micahhadar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=eBPZAAAAMAAJ&dq=Latin+Catholics+Kerala&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=sEz7GgAACAAJ&dq=Latin+Catholics+Kerala&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
I have found some book links....are these helpful???(Micahhadar (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC))
- Micahhadar, Yes. These may be helpful.
And let me know what title you are going to give to this article. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Br Ibrahim john, Hello, Could it be named as "Latin Catholics of Kerala"..??? Or is the title too long?? Micahhadar (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Micahhadar, It is appropriate. I think a title can not be made shorter than this one. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Br Ibrahim john, actually I'm not confident enough to create an article. Would it be an issue if you could create one and I could contribute to it??? As you have experience creating many!! If it is an issue leave it (Micahhadar (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC))
- Micahhadar, I can do that. But before I start creating an article, I should collect some resources. If you have content right now and want to start it by your own, you can create an article yourself by clicking on this Latin Catholics of Kerala link. If you want to edit the title, you can do that by editing it here itself.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Br Ibrahim john, As I said above I'm not confident about it. I would be glad for contributing to it.(Micahhadar (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC))
- Micahhadar, That is OK.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Micahhadar, If you want to practice creating an article or to save content as a draft, you may visit Wikipedia:Article wizard page which is meant for new users. Thank you.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Br Ibrahim john, Hello....have you started working on the article!!!! I mean collecting the sources and all!!! (Micahhadar (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC))
- Micahhadar, It may take a while. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay okay that's fine!!! Micahhadar (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard § Catholicos of the East. Elizium23 (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello
editYour edit pattern suggest that your an East Syriac Saint Thomas Syrian Christian isn't it???? Correct me if I'm wrong!!!I mean either from Syro Malabar Church or Chaldean Syrian Church....Just wanted to know Micahhadar (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am more interested in East Syriac related contents. That is mainly because Wikipedia does not have many East Syriac editors. However, I am not working for any specific Church. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Br Ibrahim john
editHello, The arrangement in the article Christianity in Kerala is slightly misleading as the names would be misinterpreted. I have arranged it in an order that the Syrians Christian denominations are differentiated. Please respond. Let's discuss. Micahhadar (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Micahhadar, It is better to arrange the denominations in the order of population counts in the case of a Pie Chart. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Br Ibrahim john, But when we arrange it population wise the differentiation would not be observed.
Micahhadar, Differentiation can be created in the body of the article. Not necessarily in the Pie Chart. It is for population based understanding.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
About a Redirect
editHello Ibrahim, It would be useful for readers if you could make a Redirect page from"Latin Catholics of Kerala" to the article "Roman Catholics of Malabar" Micahhadar (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello
editHi... please check on this User, one User:Romancatholickochi, as his name suggests he is adding POV, personal views in the article Pesaha Appam.... continuosly adidng that Pesaha Appam is also prepared by Latin Catholics. Request you to take it to greater authorites if possible. Micahhadar (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
About the renaming of an article
editHello Br Ibrahim john, I am slightly concerned about the naming of the article "Roman Catholics of Malabar" as most Syrian Catholics of Kerala (Both Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara) unknowingly refer themselves as Roman Catholics (RC), so it may confuse the readers as especially the term "Malabar" could intensify the confusion. Most people refer the Latin Rite Roman Catholics of Kerala as Latin Catholics itself, so I feel that renaming the article to "Latin Catholics of Kerala" would be apt and keep "Roman Catholics of Malabar" as a redirect. Would it be an issue. If not please try to do it, as a Google search "Latin Catholics of Kerala" would not give the user direct access to the corresponding Wikipedia article. Thanks.... Micahhadar (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Micahhadar, although this would be inconsistent with Wikipedia's consensus for naming articles and categories, I think an exception here is worthwhile. Can you provide some reliable secondary sources that document their self-identifications? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Elizium23, Here are some sources which mention the Latin Rite Roman Catholics of Malabar as Latin Catholics. As the Saint Thomas Christians who use the Syriac rite (East Syriac and West Syriac) are mostly referred as Syrian Christians, the Christians who use the Roman rite of the Latin Church are most commonly referred as Latin Catholics of Kerala. Most news publications and sourced books refer the community as Latin Catholics of Kerala.
- https://books.google.co.in/books?id=eBPZAAAAMAAJ&dq=Latin+Catholics+of+Kerala&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
Incidents
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mugsalot (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Mappila (disambiguation)
editI have returned the link to Mappila Muslims to the top of Mappila (disambiguation) because that is the proper format for a DAB page with a primary topic (per MOS:DABPRIMARY). If you think that Mappila Muslims should not be the target of Mappila - and I no knowledge of this area - please begin a discussion on the talk page for either Mappila or Mappila (disambiguation). Leschnei (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Spelling
editIn Saint Thomas Christians you wrote "recieved". The correct spelling is "received". Jellysandwich0 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Jellysandwich0, yes. That is true. Thank you for pointing out.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Kadavil Chandy
editHey Br. John, I wanted to thank you for your additions on the history of the Syrian Christians in Kerala. However I wanted to let you know of a mistake that needs to be edited. I was reading your Kadavil Chandy article and from what I know about this figure he was in fact from Kaduthuruthy but he was not Knanaya. In fact the text "The Troubled Days of Francis Garcia S.J." by J. Thekadthu notes that he was the vicar of Mangat (Alengadu). From my research on this figure he was a Syrian Christian not Knanaya. In fact he's often praised by the Northist (Syrian Christian) community as one of their famous leaders. The pages cited from Vellian do not mention Kadavil Chandy as well. Thomast48 (talk)
- Thomast48, If you are sure about this, then you should certainly contribute to the article. Meanwhile, thank you for that information.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
edit
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rsk6400, I'm sorry for that inconvenience. I think my previous edit in the Latin Church has prompted you to comment here. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Angamaly Padiyola moved to draftspace
editAn article you recently created, Angamaly Padiyola, is not suitable as written to remain published. It lacks content and needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Kleuske (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Kleuske: What have you done! The article is all finished and it's not in the mainspace. That's really sad for me. Couldn't you just ask me before unilaterally making it a draft?Br Ibrahim john (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- If an article has no sources and no actual content, draft space is where it needs to be. But you seem to have done a sterling job improving it. Congrats. Kleuske (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Kleuske: What have you done! The article is all finished and it's not in the mainspace. That's really sad for me. Couldn't you just ask me before unilaterally making it a draft?Br Ibrahim john (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, that's done. And the problem is solved. Thank you for the comments. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 13
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angamaly Padiyola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seventh Commandment.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
editI assume by your removal of the edit warring warning in Special:Diff/1047918312 that you have read through it. As an additional comment, can you explain what exactly is unsourced and "superflous" that you removed in Special:Diff/1047913829. Your mass rollback restored poorly written material which is neither adequately balanced, formatted or cited, not to mention your own followup unsourced additions such as "a head of no more than eleven parishes", etc in Special:Diff/1047914329. Please do not make changes according to your perception, this isn't personal blog and try understanding the policy on neutral point of view which "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This explainatory essay may be particularly helpful to you. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This excuse is not helpful in justifying your addition of unsourced pov. If you are interested in discussion, use the topic talk page and not my talk page. Unsourced pov will be reverted.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - SUN EYE 1 08:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions Notice
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
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. Thank you. - SUN EYE 1 09:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 12:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Br Ibrahim john (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There should be some value for truth and neutrality. This kind of policy is supporting free run fot meat puppets who dump baseless allegations in living persons biographies. How can you support users who simply add sexual allegations in biographies without reliable sources that explicitly mention such things? This is so unfortunate.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Every edit warrior thinks that their edits are correct. As such, that is not a defense. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, as truth is in the eye of the beholder, but we do deal in what can be verified. To be unblocked early, you will need to commit to not edit warring and tell what the correct ways of resolving disputes are. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
Br Ibrahim john (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] says: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I have done just what that is stated above. The article Joseph Kallarangatt had this content which was defamatory and lacking proper reliable sources- * Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of sexual assault allegations in the Church * He has also been accused of using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations from agencies under the Narendra Modi government.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 9:42 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
While unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material on BLPs should be removed, you're edit warring on sourced material. It is up to you to show that the sources are poor ones. I see exactly one post by you on the talk page and two prior blocks for edit warring. My suggestion is that you wait out your one month block and use the talk page more and the revert button less when you return. RegentsPark (comment) 12:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
@RegentsPark: I don't have any problem for getting blocked for months or even life time. I would rather say Wikepedia lost a contributor like me. I have my activities and editing Wikepedia is not a part of it. I think I won't be aware of getting unblocked after one month. However, there are some important things. I wasn't interested in an edit war. Defaming individuals without proper reliable sources cannot be justified. I cannot stay silent when meat puppets do whatever they like and add their own pov opinions in living people's biographies. The sources that they have added doesn't explicitly support their claims. Opinions of some individuals are added as if they are scholarly opinions. Till now there has not been any action from the administrators on this topic in that article even after I having repeatedly requested it. Meanwhile, edit-war is not a one-way activity. It is surprising that there hasn't been any action upon those meat puppets. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Br Ibrahim john (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't have multiple accounts. The other account that has been accused has no relationship whatsoever with me. The other user appears to be an inactive one. I was a very active contributor. The other accounts editing habits can't be compared with mine. Anyway it is much older than my block. Nobody can argue that I had made a new account since I had been doing an edit war. The account seems to be little older than it. I hope my grievance may be taken into account. If I wanted to edit the article, I would have simply logged out. I had been editing Wikipedia till I was blocked and I had been blocked two or three times for getting into edit wars. However I haven't been ever accused of sock puppeteering prior to this case. What I want to make clear is that I haven't and I have never wish to an additional account. I am not a native speaker of English. Hence please ignore the language issues. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
Br Ibrahim john (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't have multiple accounts. The other account that has been accused has no relationship whatsoever with me. The other user appears to be an inactive one. I was a very active contributor. The other accounts editing habits can't be compared with mine. Anyway it is much older than my block. Nobody can argue that I had made a new account since I had been doing an edit war. The account seems to be little older than it. I hope my grievance may be taken into account. If I wanted to edit the article, I would have simply logged out. I had been editing Wikipedia till I was blocked and I had been blocked two or three times for getting into edit wars. However I haven't been ever accused of sock puppeteering prior to this case. What I want to make clear is that I haven't and I have never wish to an additional account. Since I don't have multiple accounts I request you to reconsider the block.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No response to comment below in two weeks. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
- (non-admn comment) You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request (emphasis mine), this request is copy of the prior request, did you not read the decline? If you did why did you think ignoring it would work? Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)