User talk:Theeasytarget

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Theeasytarget, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Air[edit]

If you feel that the article would benefit from semi-protection, either let me know here or post a request at WP:RFPP. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, gosh yeah! Please do this I'm left sleepless after having read this article. What a pile of rubbish. Please do semi-protect the page I'd be much grateful. Theeasytarget (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I reverted your edit on this article - you blew away the "best looking reference" thing, which I think is legitimate given who rated it, but you also trashed two paragraphs of info on their subsidiary companies, which is a lot less questionable. Just a heads up K_arunamon ^Talk 20:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey let's not forget they USED TO be their subsidiary companies not any more! HOMA Hotels and Iran Airtour have their own Wikipedia articles and that huge amount of info was absolutely unnecessary. Plus, the trash you're pitching as facts has no place on Wikipedia. Iran Airtour is a low-cost airline?! Come on, you can do better than that. Rewrite and reword the paragraphs and halve them in size and maybe they'd be considered. And the pragraph on logo was ALL about the name and only the last line was some drivel about the logo. Absolute GARBAGE. Rewrite them if you're really concerned. Theeasytarget (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no need for the incivility here. If HOMA/IA are no longer subsidiaries, are there cites to prove it? The Iran Air Tours page uses past tense, but has nothing to support it. Homa Hotel Group doesn't even mention the relationship. I'd generally expect to see those added with links rather than entire paragraphs deleted with hostile, content-free edit summaries (which looks to anybody looking at RC like vandalism). Furthermore, having the data in there that they used to be affiliated is still valid. K_arunamon ^Talk 20:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be rewritten. Iran Airtour is not a low-cost airline. There is no such thing as 'low-cost airline' in Iran. And the paragraph titled 'HOMA Logo' was all about the name. They were broken beyond repair. Theeasytarget (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article for a week. That should give you and Karunamon time to work on it in peace. Suggest you thrash out any differences of opinion at the talk page. Please do not edit war over the article. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much K_arunamon ^Talk 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks[edit]

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:YSSYguy that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:YSSYguy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Ahunt. Do not attack other editors. Also, please read and understand WP:COPYVIO. We take both of these seriously at Wikipedia. Repeated violation of either will lead to you being blocked. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors, as you did at Talk:Iran Air. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha how ironic 36 hours would be just in time for me to join my righteous friends on Iran Air article and battle those fighting on the side of evil to the last drop of my blood. You can do better than that WIKIPEDIA! Theeasytarget (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hope was that you would start to be polite and start or join in a discussion on the Iran Air talk page to find a consensus, you also need to tone down the language or you may find your block extended. MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne Wel well well that was your personal hope. Good luck materialising it. My hope is that on January the 3rd, which by the way couldn't come sooner, I join my allies across the ENTIRE Wikipedia, no matter who they are, left right center up down, and stand up fiercely against those unwilling to COMPROMISE, those who have litte notion of MIDDLE GROUND, and those who see Wikipedian articles as monolithic entities unable to be negotiated around. Yes dear whoever, the real hope, the hope of the PEOPLE, is that. And my fear of further blocks can accurately be described as "next to nothing". We, the force of good intentions, are countless, and boundless. The fight continues... Theeasytarget (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sad little keyboard warrior

May I request you continue to block me even more forcefully (not sure if you can do better than 'indefinite') because I'm ENJOYING IT to the last bit. What a loser, what a huuuge laughingstock you're making of yourself. January the 3rd will be marked in history as the day pathetic losers like you and the other half-wit reverting indiscriminately will be taught a good lesson for the rest of your sad purposeless lives.

Theeasytarget (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Yes I admit I did some wrong, I insulted peope, I played games, but hey, I made significant contributions to many pages, Imam Airport, destinations of Iran Air and Mahan Air etc. I never had any intention of vandalising any pages, it was solely a matter of difference of opinion. I promise not to play games any more. If U review the edit history of this account or its sock puppets it's pretty clear I never vandalised, I always had the intention of improving those articles. Thanks Theeasytarget (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theeasytarget. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2017 (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.

I endorse leaving this user blocked. Their behaviour has been terrible and their attacks continued as late as yesterday. If the user is telling the truth, if they really won't "play games any more", they might be able to apply under WP:SO in six months. --Yamla (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just going to add that I think WP:SO is probably the best they're going to get. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if that's the right thing to do, then I fully comply. Many thanks again. Theeasytarget (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user was subsequently caught using 176.112.17.175 (talk · contribs) to evade their block. Please take this into account when they inevitably resurface here, asking to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user has maintained an unrelenting stream of block evasion, using a wide swath of IP addresses on a daily basis to continue to "play games", despite promises not to. --Yamla (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you Yamla, that sounds a lot like a compliment to me, "unrelenting stream of block evasion", I feel totally humbled, keep up the good work mate... 99.224.22.8 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Theeasytarget: Log in if you want to talk here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, Boing! said Zebedee, Yamla You lot actively chose to deny a well-intentioned (and admittedly foul-mouthed) user a second chance thus depriving several "high-importance" articles from in-depth local knowledge, contributed in almost native-like language. My editing history bears witness to the fact that not a single time I attemped "actual" vandalism. As you all know by now, I have access to virtually unlimited IPs, huge number of auto-confirmed accounts and a sizeable arsenal of extended-confirmed accounts in the pipeline, so write these articles off as fully-protected for a good few months. You wanted this to go down this way ;) Theeasytarget (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]