User talk:Kengiuno

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Auditing (Scientology), you will be blocked from editing. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Auditors Class XII, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auditors Class XII. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violation of Scientology topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any publication ban in regard to the scientology , as a matter of fact the names of many people were published I am not quite sure if that was dine with their consents. I claim this was done with the purpose of advertising of the same individuals!

There was a list of Scientolost and I started a section for auditors within the list , who are scientologist. There was no actual criteria of selection if one is more scientologist than another ,... on top of that in the same list were published name of people who are no longer scientologist. Providing that Scientology is a faith , not simply a label I see that you discriminate people based on religion , which is illegal practice. Why a person who was the highest producing scientologist for many years in a row does not deserve to be in the list of the scientologist and someone who no longer practice scientology shall be in the list. You have made role madels : failed actors wknown to anyone and drug addicts - this is low , but forgot millionaires , engineers , professionals , etc. And I am not a scientologist , so for sure I am not putting myself in there

I'm not sure how you missed your topic ban; it's just above the block notice, and you would have seen the orange 'new messages' bar alerting you to its presence. It's fine; if, as you say, you're not here to promote scientology, then you'll be just as happy writing about other subjects. This just means you aren't allowed to write about Scientology any more. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- Kengiuno I honestly have missed it and I have no idea what are the terms of the ban as you have not provided a reasonable explanation. I definitely will use the appeal process and further if you do not provide a valid reason. I have NOT violated the terms of Wikipedia while other users have been deliberately encouraged to be rude and delete my entry. Wikipedia terms specify that the reason provided in the logs CAN not be a reason for deletion. Your post is not an explanation WHY did you ban my additions and violates the terms of this service. On a personal level as a new user I find your last comment extremely rude and arrogant. Practically I do expect an apology. Further I would request a reasonable explanation about the rationale of this stalking and deleting my posts, while I want to mention that any discrimination on religious grounds is against the LAW. I am hoping to settle this in amicable terms. I will proceed with filing a complaint with the UN Commissioner of Human Rights in 10 business days for unequal treatment. You have specified that the unequal treatment is based on religious grounds and the fact that I disclosed that I am not a scientologist, so I am not to write on the subject. Thank you for the attention of this matter. ---- Kengiuno----

Kengiuno----

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the reason I want to be unblocked is because there was no reasonable explanation why I have been banned by this topic other than the discrimination based on difference of religion, which illegal grounds prohibited gound by the Human Rights Code. Users removed my entry with no valid explanations like : spam , advertisement and not related to the topic , none of which was true. I was not spamming , when there was a concern that the links provided to support the contents are advertisement I removed the links , but when I removed the links I was blamed that the contents can not be verified. I did follow the wikipedia terms of service but the administrator treated me differently expressively stated that the difference in treatment is based on my religious affiliation. Further the administrator addressed me as a male while I have no disclosed my gender which is unusually personal and the correspondence was not in a polite tone---- Kengiuno----

Decline reason:

Reviewing your contributions, your editing lies within the problems noted by the Arbitration Committee case cited above, and the sanctions of that ArbCom case have been applied here, so you need to appeal directly to ArbCom. Send an email to ArbCom as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, requesting the attention of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Good day. Jayron32 03:07, 4 February 2010 (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.

You have every right to pursue legal action against Wikipedia. According to

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have not made legal threats I have noted that disctrimination based on a religious affilication is in violation of the human rights code. I have asked for reasonable explanation and such did not follow but I was banned indefinitly. I find the admin comment arrogant and in a bad faith. I have done any reasonable effords to request an explanation and address if I had done anything wrong. In addition to that the Scieltology ban does not apply as I hardly made 3-4 etits of 1-2 lines. I have been on wikipedia for 1-2 hours at the most .... ah and later on I was banned so I could not make any wrong edits ... but was just harrassed by the admin on the talk page, who was calling me "he" .. and I am a female. I have contacted the erbitration commitee , but I thought if you review the above and my activity log Vs. the rude responses you might cocider to unblock me. Thanks anyway. I have no intention to spam or abuse the unblock process. In addition to that I have been acting in a good faith

Decline reason:

The UN has no authority to impose sanctions on (or compel a government to impose sanctions on) a private website, and in any case you must appeal to the

5.1). I am hereby revoking your talk page. Further appeals must be made to the ArbCom, and only after your legal action is concluded or withdrawn. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:24, 4 February 2010 (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.