Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime
October 2020
edit
Hello, I'm 1subAtomic. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Steve Price (broadcaster), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ❯❯ 1subAtomic (💬Talk) 14:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
i am new to this platform and have responded on the talk page link you provided in your message which I received by email. I have only now found this notification as it was not appearing in the wikipedia app but only the browser. I have no idea how to find my message to you and disseminate it here instead. If you are unable to locate it, please advise and I will make a repeat of it as best I can remember, or a close summary. Thank you Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Message added 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Welcome!
editHello, Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page John 20:7 did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Introduction tutorial
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Simplified Manual of Style
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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
edit Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Parable of the talents or minas, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hello! Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
|
I undid your edits to Number of the beast
editHello. First of all, I'd like to remind you that verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. It's your responsability to provide inline citations to reliable, unbiased sources in order to support the content that you are adding to this encyclopedia. Moreover, Wikipedia does not allow original research and requires its editors to maintain an impartial tone. Therefore, I had to revert your latest contributions to that article as per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:IMPARTIAL. ❯❯ 1subAtomic (💬Talk) 11:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for my error. I am going to study the rules very well and carefully. Why is it that you have to revert and delete all my changes? Are you saying not one line or reference was impartial? If you have read through my edits, could you not preserve even one line? As I am still quite ignorant of the application of many of the rules, could you please do me a favour and tell me if there is a rule which refers to the deleting of edits which are valid? I assume it says something like “if someone does valid edits but at least one out of multiple are invalid then all edits by that user can be reverted.” Would you please be so kind as to direct me to where I can validate that rule? I’m not understanding how my source was biassed. My writing included original research, you are correct. I accept for that to be removed. It was a newbie error. I admit that and I am sorry. But the missing information about 666 being the number of the sun god as calculated by the amulet, how was the source biassed? It included pictures of religious artefacts from antiquity found by archeologists, just like the fragment references on the current page. It gave mathematical formulae and calculations for the triangle number which was already eluded to in the article, without referring to the name of the type of number, or its significance in antiquity or at the time of the writing of Revelations. If a reference to 1+2+...35+36=666 is there already, and a reference to the God-man Jesus’ name in Greek adding to 888, then how can a reference to the god whose number is calculated on the page, be biassed? As a lawyer I must tell you the truth, our understanding of bias is very different. If there is a perception of bias (usually generated by a conflict of interest) with a judge or magistrate, we are required to ask them to respectfully recuse themselves from a case. Bias leads to an _unfair_ judgment or result, because something in the life or mind of the judge, or someone/thing of influence to the judge, compels a certain result regardless of the facts, and in spite of the stronger arguments. The source I used addressed more widely the topic than the page currently canvasses. It discusses 666, 616 and 606, gives historical physical evidence and more detail on the wiki explanations that are already there, and in the end stated a plain and rational conclusion based on the available evidence. The wiki page has no information on any of the numbers to assist an unbiassed person in their assessment as to which rendering is likely to be the actual and correct number. You may think that means it is unbiassed that way, but it is the opposite, with all due respect. By excluding the reference to the significance of 666 in antiquity and in terms of a religious figure, the wiki, by omission, gives the reader the misconception that all number options for the beast are equally as possible, and that there is no real way to know which option is more likely to be the correct rendering. Of course that is not accurate. Just as the 888 historical identity is referred to on the page already, so should the 616 historical identity and the 666 historical identity, both of which were contained in my reference. Just wondering please, do you have any conflicts of interest that you have declared that I should read before posting to you again? Like a fool I am writing without having any info on your background posts. Also, are bots allowed for this site and do you use one to assist you with the editing? Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at QAnon, you may be blocked from editing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to QAnon. Asartea Talk | Contribs 07:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
vandalise? pardon me? i’m so sorry perhaps I have misunderstood something. please forgive my ignorance. I reviewed the material on neutrality and realised that I accidentally disseminated some of the text on the entry page rather than put that on the talk page. i am very sorry for that error. I am brand new to this. i am so sorry. I reviewed what I had added and saw that it offered a referenced counter perspective to what was already there, in a very reasonable way, but I had no idea that I had contravened a technicality in the way the language was composed.
what confused me was that the page kept reverting in a shorter amount of time (literal seconds, only) than it would take to load the page, read the additions, check my references, aquire and access the references and then read them, and then evaluate what I wrote in light of them, and decide that my array of changes all contravened the rules, and then revert the page. As I am pretty sure this was not done, and in fact the time before reversion was shorter than I would expect it to take to read all of my additions, then I assumed a bot had been employed to revert any changes, or that someone deletes any changes in their entirety without reading them, if they take a more holistic viewpoint, or if they come from a non-authorised and vetted user who will comply with the bias and slant of the article as it stands. In fact, I am still confused about this point. That is the reason I tried to reload several edit attempts, I can assure you of that. When I tried to reedit what I wrote, by the time I pressed submit I found that I could not save changes because it had been reverted once again. While i was being completely genuine with my referenced additions, I calculated that whoever was reverting the page could not have been, because of the time frame employed and the totality of time taken to effectuate the reversion. If my calculations are erroneous, please detail for me where I have gone wrong. It is entirely possibly that I am missing some important piece of information as to why all changes, no matter what, even additions, and referenced additions, are not allowed.
another thing I might request please is that you might consider to correct my language to adhere to the policies of the site, in your experienced and unbiassed opinions, since I provided references for the additions, and did not delete anything that was already there. I simply tried to neutralise the article by adding some additional references. If this was a mistake, I am very sorry for this. I was in no way trying to “vandalise” the page, I can assure you. As a lawyer, I am wiser than to make unfounded disruptions to the page, because I understand legally what their effect can be. Just as I reserve the right to litigate against anyone who defames me, so too would I expect someone else to do the same to me if I did something actionable like falsely accuse someone of a crime. That is because I am not a hypocrite. So I can assure you on this basis, that I would never intentionally “vandalise” the page. i hope you can believe me. Vandalism is a crime against property (both physical and intellectual), and a serious allegation to make. The publishing of an untrue allegation against someone can constitute criminal a criminal or civil wrong, and even if the allegation is true, but is broadcast with the intention of damaging someone’s reputation, in some jurisdictions like my own, this can also constitute defamation, even if the allegation is prima facie founded.
Back to the article at hand, there is only one line which I believe requires urgent neutralising, and that is the reference to the articles stating “no part of the theory are based on fact.”. I think it has 5 references. Surely, the published books and interviews in printed newspapers and printed magazines, and on television news and current affair programs, are entitled to have their articles referenced in this wikipedia posting? So how, do you say, can I do that within the rules as you understand them to be? If you claim there is no way, then you are establishing, with all due respect, that edits are not allowed to neutralise this extremely aggressively written article. The article says qanon is a conspiracy theory (a pejorative) and that “no part” is true, but not just that, that “no part” is “based on fact” and somehow at least 4 different references arrive at that exact conclusion, independently and reliably. A massive statement like that, according to the reading of the rules, needs a proportionate mass of support. Since I have at least 50 published references including court transcripts, which, when similarly condensed, say that one part of the theory is based on fact, what then can we do about this in this posting? It is not very difficult to establish references which neutralise that loaded one line summary of all those references. if the Qanon theory is entirely non-factual, but just one element is based on fact, then the current entry requires addition to comply with the rules. If one part of the theory has a fact in it, then that sentence also requires qualification. I would be willing to wager, that, mental illness aside, a considerable majority of all statements are “based on fact.”. If you familiarise yourself with “SCAN” you would become aware of this.
From my updated understanding of neutrality, these wikipedia articles must simply be a compilation of assertions, made in what are considered to be reliable publications. We know for a fact that some of the references are not reliable, and that has been established. So does reliable refer then only to widely consumed? What is your take on this? Statutory interpretation requires detailed and elaborate techniques to extract the meaning of the words and their application, in the same way it would when interpreting religious texts. All words have connotations, and meaning which are disseminated beneath the surface. This changes depending on the country of origin of the reader and the language used to write the article, etc.
It is very easy to block me, I am sure. Since I don’t know how to defend myself on this platform, it makes it even easier. But would that prove my references did not balance out the aggressive and selectively referenced article? I would challenge you to consider that it would not. Perhaps editing my edit to comply with your understanding, might serve your agenda as neutral and politically centred editors better. It is what I am forced to do, to work with what is there. Can I delete the whole page and say it is not neutral, because it selectively quotes only certain references from one view point, when references exist from opposing viewpoints, thereby embedding bias within the article? Probably not, because I would get blocked. Can i block you? As far as I know, I cannot.
I am appealing with you please to do what is right, please, according to the rules and guidelines. It is only 1 line that requires urgent addressing, and I won’t bother with the rest of the bias for now. “No part of the theory is based on fact” is the offending line, and it has 4 or 5 articles as references to that statement. That statement cannot be neutral, as it is the author’s summary made after dissemination of the articles, or it is the mere application of commentary, which is also a contravention of the rules as far as I understand the meaning of them. Again I have used established rules of interpretation which are used to interpret laws used to execute or imprison murderers for life, so which by all means would be equipped to interpret to be applied to wikipedia’s “laws” so to speak. I learned and use rules of interpretation as a lawyer, and a follower of a published religious text. I have at least 5 published references, plus court case transcript material, which establish the claim that at least one (1) part of the theory is “based” on fact, as I said. Not including this information would, in my humble opinion, interpret the rules to mean that neutrality requires and not just allows references to be loaded in order to give a slanted, biassed or one-sided perspective which fulfil the technicalities of the rules, so long as no other editor wishes to raise an objection like I have. I am pretty sure the rules were not meant to be read in that way, because it would make the site a mockery, which it is not. Posts like “weasel words” further confuse me, because, again, the language is loaded. Millions of readers rely on this site, as it brings free information to the people. According to Mark Zuccerberg, head of facebook, information is the real equaliser in terms of disparity between rich and poor, and I agree with him on that. If a large chunk of vital and factual and truthful information, contained in eligible references, is not allowed to appear, then the information is not the great equaliser at all, but is weaponised, and we all know weapons are designed to cause harm, just as weaponised language does. The oath sworn in a courtroom prior to giving testimony requires the truth to include “the whole truth.”. Where there are disagreements as to what the truth is, or where information is being compiled like here, the truth is what reliable publications claim the truth is, and the whole truth is a broader selection of the available references to include more than one viewpoint, in light of the wikipedia rules. I believe my references do satisfy this, and should not have been reverted in totality.
If we are able to cooperate and maintain a level of civility, it would avoid the expense and stress of escalating the matter. Threats should be the last port of call, not the first or second. I want to understand what your problem is, as I would hope you want to understand what my problem is. Such are the pros and cons of the creative commons, and what in legal and political circles is termed formally and historically as “the tragedy of the commons,” if you are familiar with that concept.
I look forward to your carefully considered response, AFTER reading what I have written. I thank you in advance for your intention to follow the rules and to do what is right, and from refraining to engage in criminal or civil wrongs against me, and refraining from subjecting me to unwarranted sanctions or to a course of conduct, which when taken together, could be considered tantamount to harassment or cyber bullying or discrimination.
- please forgive any typographical errors, the spell check on this device seems to alter and remove words which are written intentionally and spelled correctly, and does so without notice. I mean no disrespect by sending a document with grammatical errors. I have attempted to proof this document prior to sending, but even corrections get re-auto-spelled as I am making them. I apologise for this deficiency but there is no way that I know by which I am able to avoid it. Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not Shortcuts * WP:NOTNOTHERE * WP:NNH “Some users may be interested in building an encyclopedia in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, but with different areas of focus or approach to some other users' goals or emphases. Differences that arise where both users are in good faith hoping to improve the project should not be mistaken for "not being here to build an encyclopedia" 1. I PAINSTAKINGLY spent tens of hours editing pages by adding information and including references, and spent almost as many hours writing detailed apologies and giving and asking for explanations as to where I went wrong, since I am only a few days literally into use this site as an editor or reader. My differences were in good faith, else I would not have sacrificed over 20 hours working on and planning and composing edits, and posting on talk pages, just to have my work deleted entirely within literally a few seconds. My hours of work were deleted in some cases in a shorter amount of time than it would have taken to read my edits, not to mention the time needed to read my references. My commitment, apologetic tone, willingness and effort to reach out to learn and work together, and the very short time in which I was allowed to and did correct myself (in a matter of hours or days, since I have not been editing even a week) all prove my good faith. The lack of effort by those who have indicated disagreement or hostility towards my edits, reverting my entire effort within seconds, and a failure to spend significant time to do what is further listed in the quoted guidelines below, indicates a lack of good faith on their part. However, whether they complied or not is irrelevant to determine for the purposes of lifting this block, as it is clear above that good faith disqualifies a block for “not here to build...” as is my case. Further quoted guidelines and proofs below... “Focusing on niche topic areas A user may have an interest in an obscure topic that other users find trivial or post contents that are difficult to comprehend. Diversity in interests and inputs from specialists in many fields help us function as a comprehensive encyclopedia..., if these topics have received significant coverage in reliable sources–even if those sources are printed books and specialist academic journals–then they merit a Wikipedia article.” 2. I AM a lawyer qualified in 2 countries and 3 jurisdictions, and compared to a lay person, fall within the description of a “specialist” or “niche” quoted above. I have made or attempted to make edits on topics “difficult to comprehend,” perhaps, but related to my field of qualification (e.g. criminal law), and which bring “diversity” and have tried to make deficient articles which use selective omissions to introduce bias, more “comprehensive.” I have not removed any information with my edits. I have only added to or qualified data that was already there, or provided additional sources to viewpoints which have “significant coverage in reliable sources–even if those sources are printed book” but which were omitted entirely from the respective pages I tried to edit. By contrast, the other editors who have attacked and accused me, and have claimed my sources are not reliable, did not do anything to “build” the encyclopaedia but in fact the opposite. They reverted my entire edit, even parts that did not breach any guidelines. They made no effort to validate my content or sources in some cases, and in other cases they, out of ignorance, mischaracterised a specialist topic I was trying to contribute on. Please understand, I have attempted to make edits that include neutralising or attempting to negate instances of unlawful discrimination, criminal or civil defamation, extreme aggression and quasi-harassment, misleading and deceptive conduct, cyber bullying, et. to name just a handful of the criminal and civil wrongs that I would instruct a hypothetical client to take legal action on. Without some edits not only do offenders remain liable, the offending posts can be compelled to be removed by court order, and worst of all, is hurting innocent victims who do not need to be subjected to breaches of the law in the jurisdiction of dissemination, when reading an encyclopaedia! If anyone is here to “build an encyclopaedia” it is me. Every other editor has removed valid editing by deleting my entire changes or neglected to make an effort to edit my edits or enter into collaboration to fix edits as required. They have literally deconstructed my good faith builds, and so appear not to be here to build, but to preserve a certain status quo, by dismantling which is the opposite to building. If the page keeps reverting it is not advancing. If it stays the same it is going backwards as time ticks away. Notwithstanding, their alleged breach is not relevant to reversing my block, but the contrast between my efforts and theirs makes even clearer that the grounds by which I was blocked are invalid, as per the guidelines above. Even so, I produce further supporting quotes below. * WP:NOTHERENORMS “Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to... even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. These would be dealt with through guidance, simplified suggestions on how to contribute or reediting the content to the style and standards of Wikipedia... Failure to adapt to a norm is not by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively and some might require assistance so don't be inconsiderate.” 3. THIS SPEAKS for itself. My wikipedia age is a matter of days, only. I sent out so many apologies and mea culpas and sought “assistance”, “guidance and simplified suggestions” because I did make the mistake as a newbie with the “content policies” such as “adding my own opinion.” They were honest mistakes, and the site allows for such errors. In fact, I began to “adapt to a norm” in a number of hours or maximum days, and tried to “contribute productively." They do NOT constitute a valid allegation, and are “not evidence of” grounds for a block on the basis of “not here to build...” “Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner Merely advocating and implementing changes to Wikipedia articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed and even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions.” 4. AGAIN, very clear here. “Incompatible with certain... policies and guidelines... is not the same as not being here to build...” My supposed offences according to the “disagreeing editor[s]” were “vandalism” with a threat of block and no valid explanation as to the allegation, using a “biassed” or “unreliable” source, and re-editing after multiple reverts or wiping of a significant sized edit, deleted within seconds, without the physical opportunity to read and assess my edit, which according to the above they were prima facie not entitled to revert. The truth is, I added unpopular published opinions, to a page with only popular, one sided or aggressively worded or defamatory/discriminatory opinions or sources. I am allowed to do that without being blocked, and the above quote says clearly that the disagreeing editors should be careful not to violate guideline and policies themselves, which I can assure you they have. That is because there are no grounds for establishing the allegation used against me to block me, nor has there been enough time elapsed since I became a member and user of the site to qualify as long term resistance to rules, even if I had committed a blockable offence, which I have not. 5. THE SPIRIT and wording of the guidelines and rules do not allow for hostile, aggressive and abusive confrontations and disruptions to my account, and the several hours it has taken me to respond to clear my name (if in fact the rightful decision will be made). Even if I made regular and repeated breaches of content guidelines over an extended period - which I did not, the rules still do not allow for a block under these circumstances! Blocks cannot be used as “punishments” or “penalties” but to protect the site from vandalism, for example. I stopped making edits and wrote a very long request to those who attacked me to try and work out how to proceed civilly and within the rules. So the site was not and is not in danger. I am a lawyer. I made very important edits to temper the language which I assessed as likely to be in contravention of the law in my jurisdiction, to try in bring them in line with the neutrality requirement, and to try and bring balance by expanding the sources and viewpoints available. I know that is what I did because I have referred to sufficient evidence to prove my good faith, honest intentions and desire to follow the rules. At worst I was mistaken, or there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a reliable source or bias. At best, how can we characterise admin and editors who are senior and experienced for clearly breaching the above quoted rules by enacting severe and merciless penalties which are unwarranted, and according to Wikipedia, likely violated the rules themselves. The rules do not allow for reversions and deletions based on mischaracterisations (or even valid characterisations) of breaches of guidelines, and explicitly prohibit any edits or conduct made in bad faith, or made with an agenda which is contrary to the aims and purposes and mission of this project. E.g. in order to avoid the building and advancement of the encyclopaedia, implementing blocking to stop expansions to the comprehensiveness of the content, and disagreeing with widely published but unpopular viewpoints, or even popular viewpoints, but which some editors are personally against due to intolerance, a conflict of interest, or latent bias which disqualifies their position as admin, or privileges as editor, in fact. Please remove this block immediately for the reasons quoted above, and please refer to my lengthy replies and attempts to reach out, which I composed after being attacked and vilified, as they contain proof of everything I have claimed about my actions in this appeal. The guidelines are clear on WP:NNH. There is no entitlement to sanction me on the stated grounds. They also happen to be allegations without evidentiary basis, so are prima facie defamatory, and have already cost me considerably in order to defend. Thank you in advance for correcting this injustice by removing the block. Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:WALLOFTEXT. Come on, now. WP:GAB explains how to craft an unblock request someone may actually read. Yamla (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2020 (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.
Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
WP:NNH “...good faith hoping to improve the project should not be mistaken for “not being here to build an encyclopedia" WP:NOTHERENORMS “...users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to... even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions... These would be dealt with through guidance, simplified suggestions... or reediting the content... Failure to adapt to a norm is not by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively and some might require assistance so don't be inconsiderate.” “...Merely advocating and implementing changes to articles... with reliable sources is allowed and even if these changes made are incompatible with certain... guidelines, it is not the same as “not being here to build an encyclopedia.” The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions.”
I removed no content in the 7 days I’ve been editing, spent hours (proof of my good faith) adding content to balance out non-neutral text on 11 edits, had 2 or so deleted within seconds. 2 of 11 makes “non fringe hard to find” false.
I build, they dismantle in bad faith. I have committed no offence which warrants blocking and it can’t be a punishment. The guidelines vindicate me and talk posts prove I stopped to learn before continuing, so no risk to site if I am unblocked.
The accusation of “sovereign citizen movement” is treasonous. I am a lawyer and my Sovereign is the Queen! Sovereign citizen is an abomination. My username declares my legal jurisdiction just like wiki chosen SFO in the Ts&Cs Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are now dropping legal threats alongside personal attacks -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:32, 12 October 2020 (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.
Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:NNH details no entitlement to block me. The reasons given by the blocker are libellous, and not backed by empirical data. If his reasons were 100% true they would still violate the rules on blocking. Blocking is not for personal flexing or penalising. I had already stopped editing and reached out on talk for more experienced perspectives. The block being invoked to protect the status quo hinders building of the encyclopaedia. It’s also defamatory, and unlawful discrimination. A failure to remove the slurs against me and the block within 24 hours will result in further action. Thank you in advance for following the spirit of the rules. Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
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.
UTRS 35823
editUTRS appeal #35823 is now closed. My response is blockquoted below.
Unfortunately, this is so filled with legalese that I must interpret it as a legal threat. It's too rambling for easy comprehension in any event. Your talk page content is clearly a legal threat. As long as your legal threats or action stand, you will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia. While we cannot prevent you from taking legal action, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You would need to unequivocally withdraw your legal threat to be considered for unblocking. As you allege admin abuse, you might wish to consider appealing to ArbCom, though the standing legal threat remains a barrier. Their email is arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Not wishing to sound too discouraging, but I have doubts about how they will receive your appeal. Nothing lost in trying, though. Best,