User talk:Wiki hamze
- Evidence was provided on that page, though you've proven rather incapable of examining evidence when it doesn't suit you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Since I am sure about myself, your evidence is not valid. I suggest you stop trying editing obvious facts and mislead people. please obey what people think. thanksWiki hamze (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- People other than you think that Bahai should be mentioned in the article. Only you and an account that only becomes active to help you edit war think otherwise. Take your own advice, hypocrite. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- How many times does it have to be explained to you? Wikipedia doesn't care about that, only about academic sources. Common ignorance is no excuse for censorship. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you go to street to ask people? how many of them knew name of this rare religion? academic resources are verified by experience. I just wait for your answer. By modifying the reality you can not be important, what you really are does matter.Wiki hamze (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- What part of "Wikipedia goes with the sources" and "Wikipedia is not censored" do you not understand? It's been demonstrated that you've been sockpuppetting, and if they do not indefinitely block you for that, and if you do not get it through your skull that "Wikipedia goes with the sources" and "Wikipedia is not censored," I will request that you be topic banned. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Censorship is related to reality, what you put there is not reality. I strongly suggest you to find a valid way to feel important. I also see you are avoiding answering my question. Do you really think a religion which 99.99% people of earth have not heard about it deserved to be near those top 3? at least Mormonism is by far more competent. If you insisting on putting this irrational sentences there, I will do what I have done before, 2 years ago. call people from other communities to come and judge about us.Wiki hamze (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
After careful consideration of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki hamze and your overall edit history, I have blocked you indefinitely. You are clear not here to work on the encyclopedia, choosing rather to pursue an agenda against a specific religion. Furthermore, it's clear that you have either engaged in sock-puppetry or at the very least solicited the assistance of a meat-puppet. Favonian (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Favonian, you seems to support an special religion ideology. History of changes shows these. You closed my account wiki_hamze and my room mate account, hagarblue, claiming those belong to same guy which definitely were not ( since we are two different guys, definitely you don't have any %100 evidence) . I will try to report you to other admins as an improper guy to have privilege on these issues. After that I tried to make other accounts and contact admins but you closed them. I will take my measures to prove you are not a right guy to be admin of Wiki. your measures to close my invitation in islam, christinanity and mormonism to come and join the discussion in abrahamic religion page is competently unacceptable and I will report them too. Wiki hamze (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently every single person who disagrees with you has a religious bias. How convenient. You need to understand that you're not allowed to make edits while you're blocked; this means that your edits can get reverted as block evasion. You need to request an unblock if you want to edit legitimately. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jeraphine, Admin Favonian closed our accounts ( me (wiki_hamze) and my roommate (hagarblue) without giving a 100% convincing proof. he just relied on his SENSE. we are two roommates using separate PCs. while he is an admin, I accuse him to support one side of a discussion. If you refer to history of discussion in Abrahamic religion on below date, he did the same. But in that time another admin came and remove the blocks and approved us. 10:44, 13 September 2013 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions When he block us indefinitely I didn't have anyway to edit any page of any admins, then I made new accounts to do this. If he didn't blocked me, I didn't do this. And another issue. I invited people of other communities to come and join us in discussion ( I didn't ask them to come and approve me just come and join) but he deleted those discussion in belows. Why? this prove he supports one side of discussion.
20:09, 20 July 2015 : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiki_hamze&action=edit 20:09, 20 July 2015 : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam&action=history
- Okay, here, use this template: Template:Unblock (click on the link to see how to use it) here on your talk page. Some random admin will come along and look at what you're saying here.
- The blocks look justified to me, because Hagarblue was doing nothing but acting as your puppet, so it doesn't even matter whether he's real or not. That kind of behavior is not okay here. Canvassing people off-wiki to come here and edit in your favour is not okay. That's policy, not our opinion.
- And don't make arguments like "I had to make new accounts because I can't edit" -- that's the entire point of blocking people on here. If you're blocked then you're not allowed to edit, end of story. You earned that block. It's your own fault. You need to prove that you understand what you did wrong and that it won't happen again, and request an unblock from this account, that's all you can do now. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually if even asking someone else to come and vote for me ( which I did ) is against Wiki's policies, yes, I did that and that was fault. I will ask unblock, while confessing this issue. Wiki hamze (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)