User talk:Ithinktfiam

Welcome!

Hello, Ithinktfiam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Spacenet Rural Communications

A tag has been placed on Spacenet Rural Communications requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Skomorokh ^incite 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I just happened to login, as my world doesn't revolve around wikipedia. First, I find it problematic that there's a "quick delete" w/o any external notification (eg: email).

Second, if you don't understand something, it doesn't mean the something is useless. SRC is a supplier of communications mainly to Latin America. That most Americans and Europeans have not clue about LA doesn't make it unimportant. The entry wasn't a sales pitch, but was a quick description of a company in an industry, a link that might help people looking for satellite solutions. It should have remained extant in the same way you have not only IBM, Cisco and many larger companies, but also Hughes and communications satellite pages.

This page will how to deal with these problems in general. In this case I think your best bet is to discuss the issue with the admin who deleted it (User:East718). Karlww_{(contribs|talk)} 15:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that an article with the exact same title was deleted about a year ago, so you may have some difficulty reversing precedent. East718 can place the article text here, on your talk page to allow you to improve it to meet any notability concerns. You may want to read Wikipedia:Notability. You are right that not understanding something doesn't mean it's useless. But likewise, just because it exists doesn't make it suitable for an online encyclopedia. I would suggest if someone is looking for satellite solutions that they look somewhere other than wikipedia. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2020-05 Eurabia

Hello,

Your edit at Eurabia was reverted because you confused "coined the concept" with "coined the phrase". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me if english-language is not your mother-tongue. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BS, my little child Visite fortuitement prolongée. It was rejected because the original text lied and said she invented the word while I replied with documented fact she didn't. That didn't match your antisemitic narrative. I confused nothing. All I did was correctly pointed out the origin of the word. Then your pedantic, mis-educated reply is find an excuse. The phrase was used by a journal. It was the name of the journal. That you are too illiterate to comprehend the word "coined" is the problem. That's what you get for being a liberal arts, a weird combination of ignorance and bigotry.

Where did the text say Bat Ye'or invented the word Eurabia? And do it still say that? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I can only suppose you posted the above in order to get yourself blocked, and I have obliged. You have been blocked indefinitely for personal attacks and not being here to create an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 13:35, 24 December 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

If you don't think this is a personal attack, we really have no use for you on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:58, 5 April 2022 (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.

There was no "personal attack." I pointed out that I clearly documented that a page was wrong, I provided multiple links to that effect, you said that your opinion mattered more than facts. You refused to address that the links and evidence were valid and kept deleting the accurate information. I merely pointed out that only reason that would keep happening would be for political reason.

Heck, I didn't even notice I was blocked until I went to update a page on an MLS player. I should not have been blocked and should be unblocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

Why, yes, "Please tell me if english-language is not your mother-tongue. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)" was a personal attack. That wasn't me. I then repeated that I provided a multiple links to support the edit made, and then I pointed out the only reason to continually refuse the edit is antisemitism. You've never provided any counter argument at all; furthmore one based on fact. Here's a book you can read, "Christian Antisemitism" by William Nicholl. Focus on the chapter on the Enlightenment, which shows the origins of left wing antisemitism (most of the book is the foundation of right wing antisemisism). Someone insults me for linking to evidence and you ban me.[reply]

Finally, I'll also note you start at Line 31 rather than discussion the whole thread and why it was going on that long. You prove the problem with social platforms, when moderator bias has an impact on content. If you view that as a personal attack, there's nothing more I can do.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2022 (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.