User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 20

Hey!

Glad to see you back - at least I hope you're back. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, glad to hear from you. Unfortunately, I'm still going to be semi-retired for a while. As long as my job deals with balancing opposition from management and customers, I really don't need to get into any arguments about policy or content (at least ones that I haven't completely memorized). I will come on to add anything that I come across in my reading, and I'll try to check here every now and then if there's something, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Shame, but I sympathise. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Fuck off my Pagan you bareback mancunt pig slut.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LimosaCorel (talk • contribs)

Wow, such enlightened behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to read WP:Civility.--Charles (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Already templated them. BTW, could you keep an eye on Pagan religions for me? I'm at 3r, and the above individual keeps adding unsourced (and sometimes flat out mistaken) info. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone got told next time it's a block. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Limosa seems to be trying to work in good faith, but has some issues with cooperation and citing sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Announcing my semi-un-retirement

I still am not at a point where I need to be as involved as I used to be, but it's not gonna kill me to work on stuff where I don't get into too many vitriolic arguments and disputes, and I'm probably going to be spending a lot of time trying to perfect some new articles or overhauls thereof, as I did for the Lesser Key of Solomon. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nephilim

That was copyvio, I've warned the editor. Thanks for reverting. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

new entry

The Wikipedia entry for me was created by my academic department. I have to go over it and see if I can edit it. Theo Pavlidis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.78.56 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Thanks for the comment over on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard with the WP:OUTING note. And sorry that I left your comment dangling after I deleted User:ChiefClancyWiggam's edit for privacy concerns. There's been a bit of a cluster of sockpuppets on this issue and I'm playing catch-up. I'm not always being neat. I doubt you're interested but there's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msc008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic shaman. Oh, I see you've already been there. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 03:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no need to apologize. Happy hunting. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

But I do need to apologize. I must maintain my self-image as a polite and civilized WP editor. This offsets my horribly rude sociopathic personality in real life. Thank you for your gracious and encouraging comment. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 04:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Theo Pavlidis

This is a place with documentation about my work http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=N7m4vIQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theopav (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please delete the page. It was created by my academic department expecting me to edit it, etc. They created an account for me for that purpose. Unfortunately, I do not have the time or patience to familiarize myself with the Wikipedia system. I do not need the hassle. 19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theopav (talk • contribs)

Honest guv

"protect this site and its honest, non-promotional, non-edit-warring users" - might be best to remove the word "honest" from that, IMHO, because it implies the people editing the article are not honest.

No big deal, just a thought. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that "non-promotional" after it that it'd be a little more clear I meant everyone but Indiggo77, who's now blocked at any rate. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo77 sockpuppetry / Indiggo

Banned user Indiggo77 is back as User talk:Lizzie112079. What can be done about that? Thanks. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop reverting when I am trying to edit the page. The page needs neutral points of view. I am always explaining my edits. Indiggo are actresses, singers, writers according to Imagem and other sites. They are not reality stars. Why do you keep deleting? Why don't you post manager David Sonenberg who states that Indiggo are "the real deal" in several articles? Piers Morgan comment was racist. DavidLeib (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I know you're yet another sockpuppet of the Indiggo girls. When will you get it through your skulls that this site is not an advertising service for your miserable attempt at being artists? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wow Ian - to quote you about living people with a wikipedia article, "your miserable attempt at being artists?" - you are excessively opinionated about this article and should not contribute or discuss the subjects of it at all. Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The girls are strongly biased toward exploiting this site for their gain, and you defended it. Heck, you've all but encouraged it. Hypocritical much? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted DavidLeib's promotional and badly sourced edits. User:Epeefleche reverted my revert. If its against Wikipedia rules for me to revert that, what can I do? My position (as opposed to DavidLeib's) is legitimate (Talk:Indiggo#Problems_with_sources).63.247.160.139 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That thread didn't mention "stiri din romania." I'll bring it up. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Islam

You are right regarding your statement about wikipedia's neutrality. I am really thankfull. But I still doubt, why this image is placed in the beginning. Regarding angels there should be a verse from Quran pointing towards them or some thing else.Septate (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You may want to bring it up at Talk:Islam. So far as I can tell, its placement in the article is meant to illustrate Islam's belief in Angels. We usually avoid working with primary sources directly (especially religious texts), especially if secondary sources are available. That's because Wikipedia doesn't want to engage in original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained

Hey Ian. An image was removed from the article Islam from the lede with out proper explanation. Since I am a mobile user so I cannot restor it. Can please restor that image on my behalf and call the user to talk. I will be very thankfull.Septate (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The image was removed by Wiqi55, who stated that "one image of hajj is enough in the lede". I've readded it, but moved the other picture to the "Hajj" section of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Tetramorphs

Hey Ian. I'm justifying everything I'm saying by logical arguments. The Gospel according to Matthew has a great quantity of "semitisms" (semitic expressions) in its writing in relation to other Gospels, from this and from its lecture it can be inferred that was a Gospel to portray Jesus as the jewish Messiah. The explanation on the other tetramorphs comes from the very reading of this gospels and also from logical reasons. Moreover, St Augustine was a person who studied the bible. He didn't know Jesus nor probably the Gospels' authors so anyone who studies it seriously should be able to write his conclussions if this conclussions are objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaulOlmos (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well then, this means surrender knowledge to people rich enough to publish books or aknowledged by other professionals (who might not want to acknowledge some things due to his own agendas, this is mostly true in the case of religion and the Catholic Church) and thus instead of free knowledge we perpetuate the Monopoly of Faith of some churches. If I tried to write 2+2 equals 4 this would also be reverted? This escapes my comprehension... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaulOlmos (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppets

I read what you wrote on Talk:Islam. Please could you do a sock puppet investigation (SPI) report on the two you mentioned and the new one. Please could you explain the linguistic blunder he/she made on the SPI - I am certain you are right - but I do not have sufficient skill to understand what blunder he/she made. I think you explained it, but you need to explain it on the SPI in a way that makes it clearer to people.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If they are not scared off by the discussion, I will. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Septate has been in some POV pushing elsewhere (tried to censor the Voltaire article a couple of times). I'll file one when I get a touch more evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Sockpuppet investigations has completely failed, you really have a very wide imagination. You spend a lot of time trying to proof us guilty of something we´re not,it just made me laugh how convinced you were, no go cry about it.Walid562 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Walid562 - you bad understand. The sock puppet investigation gives us confidence that you are genuine. This makes us happy to edit with you. So we win.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind that the "aniconism/iconoclasm" screw up alone would be proof enough in any school or university that one student wrote another student's paper; and that sleeper accounts are hard to catch with a CU, particularly when one consistently edits on a mobile platform.

Walid562: Going out of one's way to gloat hardly seems cooperative, reasonable, or mature to begin with, but seeing how it's in the light of a message I left at the bottom (clearly stating that I'm only working on Solomonic demonology while I get some teaching opportunities sorted out), I will treat any further unrelated messages from you as harassment. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo

Hi, there is currently a discussion on whether the deleted article Indigoo should be restored here. As a major contributor of the article you may want to comment on it. Thanks. BigCat82 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

How long it will take for investigation to happen, since it is taking too long. I wanna be free from all this nonsense. Block me at once if I am proved to be a sock of someone known as waled. But do the investigation fast.Septate (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

IRANIAN PROTESTORS

Those Anti-Hijab protesters in Iran are being used to incite Islamophobia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 (talk • contribs)

If you have a problem with women protesting for the right to not wear a hijab, I don't think they're the ones inspiring Islamophobia here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Other pictures could be added on wikipedia...regarding the Spread of Islam the diversity in Muslim history and cultures...Sufism should be reflected upon and its Orders should be mentioned...different phases of Islamic History from the prophet Muhammad, to the establishments of Emirates, Sultanates and Khanates, various Islamic Empires (Oriental Powers), the Great Divergence and western colonialism should be discussed and should be mentioned...wikipedia has unfortunately placed a lot of its focus on Ottoman history and art and culture ignoring other Muslim cultures, which is very unfortunate...images of the prophet Muhammad are unanimously disagreed upon in the Muslim world therefore such pictures should not be put up on the article on Islam (just use the calligraphic representation of Muhammad)...figures from Islamic Jurisprudence should be mentioned particularly the schools of thought...finally the section regarding the Criticism of Islam should not have Anti-Hijab protesters from Iran (because Iran simply is not the entire Muslim world, for crying out loud)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

Why you keep on insisting anything that is always anti-Muslim,there is not a single pic about holocaust on criticism of Christianity(everyone knows Hitler was christian). What about atrocities committed by Christians against Jews for centuries. Thousands of Muslims were killed by Serbian Orthodox Christians in 1995 during Bosnian war! We have a lot of pictures available but they are not placed on criticism of Christianity section. But when it comes to Islam rules totally change! Are you here to spread islamophobia? The elite class of Iranians have simply hijacked Islam in order to rule the country. There is nothing wrong with Islam.Septate (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

How was the picture of the angel anti-Muslim? How is the picture of Muslim women protesting for their rights anti-Muslim?

Our articles already cover plenty about Christian violence against Jews, evenly covers the Yugoslav Wars (where all kinds of people were killing each other for more reasons than religion), and describes Hitler's religious views better than mistaken assumption that because he tried to use Christianity for political purposes, he must've been Christian. If I was going to push my own POV, I'd cite Hitler's study notes in his personal copy of Magic: History, Theory and Practice to point out that he believed Satan was merely the active aspect of God, who he hoped to help "create" the "real" world through violence, and that he outright aspired to be the Antichrist.

Your accusations might have more backing if you actually looked at what kinds of articles I edit on this site instead of making up straw men. I've never edited anything relating to Serbia or Kosovo, so why would I have anything to do with that content?

If you look through my contributions, you'll see:

• Most of my work these days is trying to overhaul the List of Demons in the Ars Goetia article, while overhauling or creating articles on texts I totally disagree with and repudiate, such as The Lesser Key of Solomon, the Magical Treatise of Solomon, and the Livre des Esperitz.
• Me reverting a Christian editor I completely agreed with.
• Here and here, I argue against and revert an editor who tried to argue that Christianity wasn't influenced by Zoroastrianism.
• Here, here, and here, I restore "Christianity" as Anders Behring Breivik's religious ID, even though he represents almost the opposite of what I personally believe Christianity to be.
• Here I revert an anti-Islamic edit claiming that Sharia justifies honor killings.
• Here I criticize the classification of the destruction of several Mosques as being inspired by Islam.
• Here, here, here, here, and here I undo someone linking to an Islamiphobic piece of garbage.
• Here I restore the category "Christian terrorism" to the Joseph Kony article.
• Here I disagree with an attempt to list Jesus's religion as "Christian," as it could be Jewish, Buddhist, or Cynic.
• Here I remove a dubious inferrence that the Church has always been pretty nice to the Jews.
• Here and here I revert someone for spamming a Christian site, warning them not to do it anymore.
• Here I tag a Christian music publisher's account for a conflict of interest.
• Here (1, 2, 3) are three counts of me removing a link to a blog with accurate information detailing the differences between Gnosticism and orthodox Christianity. The author of the blog appears to be at least as orthodox Christian as I am, and I have been reading some parts of the blog for my own enjoyment. However, as a blog, it doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion.

You've already demonstrated that you're here to push a Muslim POV. Trying to reverse that by saying I'm pushing an anti-Muslim POV isn't going to work. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear fellow I am saying exactly the same thing. There was nothing wrong with Christianity, it was Hitler who was anti-Jewish and evil. Same situation is with Islam. Wearing hijab is only for devout Muslim women. But when government forces non-muslim and liberal Muslim women to wear hijab, then it is a political case not religious one. Further the picture was added without a proper concensus on talk page. Is it right?

When it comes to picture on angel, It feels very disturbing to me and to thousands of Sunni Muslims who read the article every day. On article Jesus you seem to very cautious about reliable sources but when it comes to Islam the picture of angel comes from an unreliable source known as www.zombie times.com(the name indicate that it is unreliable.) What's wrong with a calligraphic representation of angles? Tell me!!!!!

Similarly, I don't see any mention of caste system on criticism of hinduism section. As far as I know Hinduism has well developed caste system in with upper caste Hindus discriminate lower caste Hindus. No one can deny these facts. But it is very disturbing when I read a statement given by user Khaboos(probably a hindu), saying that 'Shahada is fanatical', in words Islam should accept universalism in order to avoid criticism. And Muslims should start believing that God has son, there is a bunch of Hindu gods and Buddha was divine!Septate (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your views on the hijab: they are just that. If I were to push my own religious views, Hitler would be labelled a Satanist, Anders Behring Breivik would be labelled an atheist, and the Westboro Baptist Church would be labelled a fertility cult. But, Wikipedia does not operate off of anyone's personal point of views, not mine, not yours. It operates on outside observation that is as close to objective as possible. From this outside perspective, the government of Iran claims to be Muslim. Do I think they're Muslim either? No, I agree, they're not good Muslims. But, they are a major government that loudly proclaims themselves to be.

Regarding the Jesus article's pictures and the picture of the angel: it's easy to get free picture of historical Christian art. The picture of the angel is not from Zombietime, it is from a late medieval manuscript in the Topaki Palace library, as has been said at Talk:Islam over and over and over. Others have found sources backing this up. We don't allow users to post their own research, but we frequently allow users to upload their own photos of artwork, because those users are not considered the source but the copier. Likewise, zombietimes is not the source but the copier.

Regarding Khaboos: his edits are being reverted as well, and he's being treated as a POV pusher. I'm not sure why you're bringing him up.

Your posts on this page have accused me of trying to spread Islamophobia (granted, before you changed your tune in the face of evidence to the contrary), repeated the same argument that's been shot down at Talk:Islam (even by users like Wiqi55 who do not want the angel picture in the article), and is overall part of an attempt to right "great wrongs". I recommend sticking to articles you can edit neutrally. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But can I replace the image with some calligraphic description of angles? Is it possible! I think you should not have any problem with this?Septate (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

POV

Dear fellow, why you always convict me of POV pushing as you did on article Islam's talk page. While looking at my edit history you will find out that most of articles I have edited are related to biology and to some extent chemistry. The only article I have created so for is Ostia(Sponges) which is a Sponge related article(phylum porifera). I am not interested in editing religion anymore but your bias for a particular religion(Islam) has kept me to continue editing religion. If you treat all religions alike then why there is no criticism section on article Hinduism. Is Hinduism divine or true religion so that no one has made criticism. The reason behind this is that there are a lot of Hindu POV pushers on Hinduism related articles who continue to revert everything which is against Hinduism. If you don't believe then check the revesion history of Criticism of hinduism. Entire sections have been removed by Hindu POV pushers, and no one including you have done anything. But when it comes to Islam(a religion which has been ruined by terrorism) related articles users continue to add anti-muslim sentiments and no one cares! Dear fellow I have no waste time to fight with you on this topic but think for a single moment the picture like that of angel(the obvious motive of this image is to show people the appreance of Islamic prophet Mohammed) is the same thing with urges Muslims to commit terrorism. Why are you playing with the feelings of 1 billion people( excluding shia muslims)? Whats wrong with having calligraphic representation?Septate (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Concerning La Roux

I usually go through these pages for marking/fixing dead links, and filling references. There are few dead links.

I had checked your edit[1], I would like to inform you that user misrepresented it. Tim Jonze wrote that "So heard the new La Roux album yesterday and it was bloody brilliant!" [2] It can be added? Tim Jonze seems notable too. OccultZone (Talk) 12:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah neat. Jenesaipop.com seems to be a reliable enough source for a statement along the lines of:

Proof of a new album surfaced on March 21, 2014, when Tim Jonze, music columnist for The Guardian, tweeted that he "heard the new La Roux album yesterday and it was bloody brilliant." The official La Roux page responded with "Thanks!"(ref here)

I'm actually supposed to be working on some teaching certifications and my taxes right now, though. Feel free to word it however you want if you'd like to add it. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Added exact. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk) 13:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Have a opinion here, if you would like to, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Jonze (2nd nomination). OccultZone (Talk) 04:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral in the matter, and also *points below*. Sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing but I just created a new page for all non-notable or hardly notable journalists. Sometimes I really think that wikipedia is endless. Have a good break! OccultZone (Talk) 19:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Re-semi-retirement

Although I'm trying to improve our coverage for Solomonic demonology stuff for Lent (IMO, some proper secular academic literary criticism and history does the Lord's work better than all the fire-and-brimstone sermons and book burning in history), I've really really got to work on my taxes and some teaching certifications. As such, aside from a few daily edits to my attempt to overhaul the List of Demons in the Ars Goetia article (and articles about each demon) or new article drafts, I should not be on here. I just quit my job to focus on the chance to actually make enough a living wage, so the next few weeks are really important. No teaching certifications: back to retail hell and slave wages. Don't get my taxes done: I will have to choose between defaulting on my student loans or go back to retail hell (where I will be far less likely to find a teaching gig).

In short: If it doesn't concern Solomonic demonology, please do not ask me to participate on this site. I apologize if this inconveniences or frustrates anyone.

Thank you, Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Lent ended yesterday, but I'm still getting my passport and visa sorted. If I see something problematic pop up that shouldn't require much involvement, you may see me active; and if you have a request that somehow won't require much involvement but you cannot do yourself for some reason, I may help -- but I'm still semi-retired. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please sign

Your last talk page comment wasn't signed. Also, the forty days aren't made clear in the Lent article. Wait, you didn't address that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I usually just slap a {{unsigned|usernamehere}} template whenever I see that. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agares, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oriens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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, Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I was not vandalizing the article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

Ian,

I was not vandalizing the article Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. If you look, I was removing references to 'apologists' as this undermines anyone that disagreed with the author. You cannot claim neutrality and retain such verbiage. Additionally, the author makes several claims without reference that attack any dissenting opinions, such as under the reference to goats, sheep, Barley & Wheat, Iron & Steel, and Systems of measuring time. The author is intent on refuting any and all evidence despite our overall lack of knowledge for much of the timeframes indicated. How am I being biased, then, when I left data but removed the deriding verbiage of 'apologists'? Don't forget, the first scientists to claim existence of germs or the dangers of smoking were ridiculed both by their peers and the populace at large.

Jayman85 (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who left the vandalism warning, though I came close. You were trying to make religious claims by apologists rejected by all but some of their co-religionists look like plausible claims by secular academia. That's either dishonest or stupid.

And those who first advocated germ theory or the dangers of smoking did so because they had data. You do not. You just have a religious bias, which would put you not in the crowd of those who mocked germ theory, but with the geocentrists during the Copernican revolution. Heck, at least they had the excuse that they were sticking with dominant tradition, you're trying to turn a fringe view into a mainstream one after it's already been rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And you don't have a bias? To claim 'apologist' is a valid reference to someone who disagrees is biased. The lack of data does not refute anything, it simple proves no one really knows. I am not biased by saying that. Any researcher who goes into a situation with a desired result, biases the study. The use of the Bible has been supported and refuted as well for historical research, it doesn't change the fact that there are points on both sides of the fence. Jayman85 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

An apologist is someone who tries to defend a religious position that is not readily accepted outside the religion. Anyone attempting to defend the claims in the Book of Mormon are, by definition, Mormon apologists.

And by the (ill-)logic that an evidence of absence is really an absence of evidence and therefore no evidence to make a claim, goblins and trolls exist and are standing right behind you, right now. Burden of proof lies on those who make claims, and there has been no evidence provided that horses or such were present in America before then. We know what kinds of dinosaurs were present in America from archaeological records, and monuments and stories left by various Native American tribes gives us a pretty good indication of what kinds of animals were known to humans living here before European contact.

You are of no use to this site. Leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

unblocking

is it ok if you unblock me(jungleewan)? i was blocked unfairly and by the time i complain from the person,i wasblocked already.

respectfully, jungleewan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piachpia (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

tnx

ian, i'm a bit confused.

i had an account jung lee wan,i'm a rookie, i have no idea how to operate in wikipedia. i tried to add some comments,one guy (who is now retired admin) fully retired blocked me,so i had to register now a new account. i would liketo use my previous account jungleewan please.

way before i even realize the guy blocked me not bcoz he had a reason,but bcoz he picked on me. now do i have to register 40 thousand accounts so i can contribute? also,if this account is not blocked, why should i want my previous account to be unblocked?

ian,please feel mercy and be a noble gentleman,we are adults, not little kids to point fingers,blame and act negative. only a super vicous person could block and censor someone else. the point is that even if the guy had a legitimate reason,he could have acted like an adult.

respectfully, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piachpia (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

tnx alot

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piachpia (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)