{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinosarewrong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #17869 was submitted on Mar 24, 2017 19:46:54. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinosarewrong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #17878 was submitted on Mar 29, 2017 01:03:29. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- (Cross posted from User talk:2A02:A441:9914:1:842A:5BB0:EAC9:6C33):
- Your argument that your username refers to a (Dutch) Sesame Street character is hard to believe since you made it plural. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, that you keep using the UTRS to appeal your block despite the clear instructions to use the unblock template and no instructions on how to use UTRS tells people that you've been blocked before and had your talk page access revoked under that account. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just because the block on your IP address expired does not mean that you were unblocked. You, as a person, are blocked -- you, as a person, are not welcome here. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Again its about your believes you believing that it is racial slut doesnt makes it so, you not wanting to believe that calling some one a pino is a thing in holland is your believe. you blocked my ability to edit and create my own user page, so the instrucktions on how to request where not clear as they directed me to blocked actions, furter more this is an indication of prosecution by you ian. me as a person is not welcome because i disputed you allegations not supported by fact but by believes, you have emotionally scared me by this abuse of power and total lack of logic. You make assumptions and act on them dis-proportionally. a news report is not a legitimate source, not even when you believe it. why is it any ways that you dont get supervision as you are biased, you are anti nationalist and by banning me as a person you are displaying this bias.
Pinosarewrong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the usage of pino is made a thing by paul de leeuw, here really likes big bird http://humortv.vara.nl/fragment/plork/, the word pino is not racial slur, he would call all the men in the crowd pino not knowing their, it is the first time i used that name, there is not one reason to "believe" it is racial slur, im effectively being discriminated on cultural basis. the moderate ian is biased against nationalist this is the reason i received this block ban, i contested the authenticity of some of the sources linked as it is a news article not substantiated by fact or data. the mod is pro globalist as his info page suggested there for he has a bias in thi situation and doesnt appears to normal civil behaviour of debate instead resorts to slander ad homiem on the talk page, and mis using his powers, as my name is not racial slur at least not ment to be, there is no reason correlation or setting in which it makes sense or reasoned to be that it is racial slur. considering my comments of doubting parts of the insulating text that is unsupported by a scientific fact was directed at fallacies presentad by ian, this is a clear breach of neutrality.Pinosarewrong (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please read WP:NOTTHEM. Your claims, given your edits under this account and the IP, are also unconvincing. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 30 March 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.
In order for me to use that function i need to be unblocked!?. As for the mention of the moderators actions he blatantly comes out and bans me as a person simply because there is a assumption made that my name is racial slur (have me change my name if you get offended by it which i sdid as i am considered to those that think big bird is racial slur., to which there is no relation as there is no race present or discussed in any of the things i edited.
As for my recent edits they are arguments to why text is not based on fact and the sources used are claimed to be credible sources but they are news articles with out the actual reverence to the fact as there is no fact. I got banned blocked by the moderator in that section because with out argument reason or fact im not there to contribute according to his opinion there for i must be completely banned as a person(this is highly offensive to me btw), clearly i was trying to maintain factual integrity. i said this on the alex jones page, a nationalist, the mod in question says on his info page he is against nationalist. This is a clear bias and he should not be moderating that page. I got banned because i find slander and attacks on charterer with out support to that wrong. Something that is actually being used by a moderator in the talk page of alex jones against users instead of argumentation. What are the claims that are found to be unconvincing? Why are they unconvincing ? If its my name that is found to be offensive why block me completely instead of just requesting a name change?
Why say i am not contributing when i am standing up for the integrity of the information provided, information that is just someones unfounded opinion on cnn ?. A news article is not a source reference especially not if the reference is referred as cnn news said this. sure they said that but unless it is sourced it is just a opinion. There are countless comments on that talk page, that this comes from credible sources, yet non are named. when ever some one says this is not true because of this this this, it is simply said, credible sources said so.
THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC METHOD im having chest pains over this, when news, a network that btw is been called fake news by the president of the united states of America,They have brought out literly tons of fake stories How is their opinion credible? and this is what it is, the source references lead to un sourced articles of them saying so and no actual source..
Dont just take it for me or the president take it from a actual cnn reporter http://yournewswire.com/cnn-journalist-governments-pay-us-to-fake-stories-shocking-expose/ cnn is the fake news, how can it be used as a source and believed it is credible with out any source or fact provided.
- As you are clearly not here to improve an encyclopedia, I have removed your ability to edit the talk page, you will need to use UTRS for any future unblock appeal, something that you already know how to do. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)