User talk:John3825/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2017
Eventually, these people are running fraud schemes to vanning people with unclear blocklist without trust (volunteer editor). It is known to make errors editing others because they are not certified professionals. Because there is no background check for editor personals, there are criminal activities that terrorists and criminal organizations use free website, news, and wiki to falsely promote their criminal activities, such as M.E. terrorists. Just as you hear on news. It will be penalized soon. ( criminal charges: isolation, concealment, organization, false impersonation, fraud scheme, attribution, support, leading, incite, promote, net globalization, possibility of vulnerability, possibility of criminal activity ) ( ... Ex post facto law)
It is critical wrong-doing to trust free editors and free moderators without certain "Identity check, background check, fingerprint check" for user trustworthiness on data security. From the regular, normal, results of user ID checks on other sites, the user trustworthiness without those checks are critical danger.
Please stop
Where is it on their website?
- Where is it? where are you?
This article in the Japan Times says the winning candidate may be announced next year. There has been no official announcement, your source only mentions an interview.
You really do have to stop and get agreement on the appropriate talk pages or you will be blocked from editing. We can't have badly sourced material added as fact. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- What is the meaning of the sentence? Perhaps, it is on or not on the news at the time of the incident. It does not allow not trusted moderator with no trustworthiness to edit or delete free online documents built on wiki system as you know, if they do they are nothing but criminals with the above mentioned criminal activities.
John3825 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Evidently, you failed to read the guide to appealing blocks, specifically WP:NOTTHEM. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC).
* Favonian Please read the history of the talk or change comment with the fact that they are reverting with vandalism without a single fact of reality to the official decision fro the organization.
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.
John3825 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The talk and the discussion are worthless without a single fact and the moderator, Drmies, is warned many times for unreasonable blocks from many other users stated in the talk page of the moderator.
Decline reason:
Evidently, you failed to read the guide to appealing blocks, specifically WP:NOTTHEM. Continue on these lines and the results will not be favorable to you. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:45, 13 November 2017 (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.
John3825 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The talk and the discussion are worthless without a single fact and the moderator, DrmiesJpgordon, is warned many times for unreasonable blocks from many other users stated in the talk page of the moderator.
Decline reason:
You were told twice already how to request an unblock, and to stay away from arguments that point the finger elsewhere. It's obvious you are ignoring this, and for the remainder of this block, I'm withdrawing your talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2017 (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.
- <<post ec decline comment> Clearly you do not understand the reason for your block. Casting aspersions against your colleagues is certainly not helping your cause. It's just more disruption. As is filing another unblock < 15 minutes after the last decline while casting aspersions. Perhaps you could take the time to read WP:NOTTHEM. It would seem to the point. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies is, like me, an elected member of the WP:Arbitration Committee, and as such one of the most trusted members of the community. And you've misrepresented his talk page. He's made over 227352, a lot more than my 176091. You've made 33. Don't you think that you might be able to learn from us? By the way, we are WP:Administrators, not moderators. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- What is the meaning of the sequences and the sentences? It does not allow not trusted, arbitrators, moderator with no trustworthiness to edit or delete free online documents built on wiki system as you know, if they do they are nothing but criminal with the above mentioned criminal activities. It seems that they are only organizing the criminal activity and isolating as if they are trusted users.