User talk:YipH
Uploading photos
[edit]When uploading a better version of the photo, just use "Upload a new version of this file" option to replace old one with a new one in the future --Bololabich (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]After being warned that you shouldn't make racial comments on Wikipedia, you then went ahead and restored such comments and with an additional racial comment in your edit summary (see this edit. Wikipedia will not tolerate racist behaviour on any level and as a result you've been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 16:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 
YipH (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here YipH (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
"You shouldn't jump to conclusions" - good advice. Surely you checked the page history and can tell me which "dirty Indian troll" added that (sourced and correct) information? Sorry, if you don't see the problem with such commentary, Wikipedia is not the project for you. Huon (talk) 17:20, 16 September 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.
I am not sure what your problem is, I reverted that edit because I thought you unreasonably overuled J's edit on why that sentence was removed in the first place. Then afterwards I read the history log and saw the reason for the edit and the link to the source and then I understood and so I undid my edit. Does that make sense now? Go check my history and the page history yourself if you want.
You shouldn't jump to conclusions, not everyone is out to get you, maybe you need understand people more instead of spending so much time on wikipedia stirring up drama.
I pressed enter by accident, but my message continues, I would like to be unblocked, I would like to contribute to this site for the improvement of the internet.
YipH (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you check the revision history, walter gorliz corrected my revision and I stand by it, that is why I reverted my edit.
(cur | prev) 22:35, 15 September 2017 Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs) . . (186,702 bytes) (+148) . . (Reverted 1 edit by Jd22292: Perhaps one should read the supplied references before deleting for reasons of personal bias. In case you missed it: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080402/dq080402a-eng.htm. (TW)) (undo)
Decline reason:
See below
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.
.
Why are you asking me this? Shouldn't you have checked the revision history like I told you to? If you don't understand, here is the time line, I made a request to edited the article to remove the questionable stat, then J honored my request, by stating that the stats were not supported. good. and then Cant overuled J for no good reason, so I sided with J and reverted cant's edit, then I looked at the history and walter stated why he reverted the first time (excellent, just like how it should be done), so i agree with walter and reverted my own edit.
So now does that make sense. Can you unblocked me, I would like to contribute to this website.
- I'm asking you because you insulted other editors in a highly inappropriate fashion. I did check the revision history of the Canada article to try and find out who added that information but gave up when it was already there back in 2009, thousands of edits ago. Have you checked the revision history before concluding the person who added it was Indian? On what basis did you assess their cleanliness? Huon (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
YipH (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am confused, I insulted no editors, who are you talking about? Who are you referring to that is so petty and sensitive that they feel I insulted them? if they come here and write that they were insulted and state their reasons then maybe I would apologize, but it seems for now you are speaking for others and I don't see the reasoning for you to do that and to do such a thing to them. Maybe they should get out more and don't take things so personally on wikipedia, I reverted an edit and it is as if the guy(s) took it personally. Anyways, back on topic, indians have a long history of trolling edits on wikipedia and inserting their personal bias, they have to understand that the world doesn't revolve around them and that no one gives a damn about india when they try to obviously insert the country into an uninvited and unrelated topic. Wikipedia should be fair, accurate and neutral. That is the reason why I made the original edit, to revert the indian bias, but in this one in a million case I was wrong because walter provided a source link. Good, I approve of that, so that is why I reverted my own edit to to talk page right away. Seems someone else was looking for more than what meets the eye. I can't help that if they don't understand. I made a mistake with an edit on the talk page and I reverted it, I did the right thing So I would like to come back to editing wikipedia, I would be more careful with edits in the future.
Decline reason:
Your comments indicate racial and religious bias of such a severe nature that I do not see how you can contribute successfully in a collaborative environment, where you will have to work side-by-side with Indian and non-Muslim editors. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 16 September 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.
- You reinstated talk page comments containing the text "I don't appreciate indians (especially ones who troll wikipedia) always trying to sneak in their indian bias and false information into Wikipedia articles." and at the same time made an edit summary containing the text "J also did state that the indian did not give a source". Do you honestly not see what is wrong with this? Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be fair, accurate and neutral. There have been too many indian trolls on wikipedia trying to unfairly promote their country and it is annoying, a lot of other muslim people and white people don't like indian people either when they do this, perhaps you need to speak to other people about these indian trolls too. No one gives a damn about india.
This time I made an edit, i was corrected by walter, i originally thought you unjustly overuled J and that wasn't right so I immediately reverted the edit you did to J, then i clicked history and saw the reason and walter gave the source, so he was right. You did not give a source, too bad, why should i listen to you? However walter did give the source and reason for the edit, and I respect that, so I reverted the edit. why are you making a big deal out of this? Did I hurt you? Too bad, don't be so sensitive, you don't see anyone else complaining and blocking users because of something so petty. All I want to do it help wikipedia for the internet, so I should be unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YipH (talk • contribs)
- There are trolls of any number of nationalities. It is unacceptable to assume that all Indian editors are trolls. Further, Indian editors are hardly the only ones "trying to unfairly promote their country"; the discretionary sanctions that exist for articles about the India-Pakistan conflict are pretty good testament to that. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I understand your point, indian people have been beaten by muslims for hundreds of years and they have an inferiority complex and feel like they have to try and show up the superior muslims, but that doesn't mean they should troll wikipedia for edits, I was just trying to correct the wrong that indian people are putting out on wikipedia. You can agree to correcting a wrong edit right? I do have a strong sense of righteousness and if I see someone trolling on wikipedia I will try to correct it, this time it was indian because they do it so often. I can be more careful in the future by asking for a source for their trolling, but they won't be able to provide one, so then that will stop them in their tracks.
But Fred, I do appreciate you taking the time and explaining it out, unlike some people who just get upset and block someone abruptly without getting all the facts.
I would like to continue to contribute to wikipedia, I am very well read and want to share my knowledge.
September 2017
[edit]
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.