Someoneovahere
Welcome!
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, Someoneovahere! Thank you for your contributions. I am DRAGON BOOSTER and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
edit
Hello, I'm Jackfork. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Federal Reserve System have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Jackfork (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Jackfork:. I was of the mind that Wikipedia is meant as an unbiased encyclopedic collection of facts. "Constructive" implies an oligarchic narrative. What, the question is begged, might you be constructing?
If the collapse of a bank has great implications for the overall economy as the Wikipedia page asserts, rather than the bonuses of kleptocratic bankers, why would not the Federal Reserve bail out the hundreds of millions of people participating in the economy centrally affected by this collapse through a basic income program, rather than simply bailing out the banks themselves? There are inconsistencies here, you must concede. Someoneovahere (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Someoneovahere (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reason: Apparently I was permanently blocked for a 98-byte edit made on IanThomson's Talk page. I cannot even view the edit so I have no idea if it was actually defamatory. If the Wikipedia infrastructure doesn't record why I am in jail, I shouldn't be. Civilization works on due process. Eh Favonian? Someoneovahere (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is the edit. The block is correct, unblock declined. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:47, 27 July 2021 (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.
@HighInBC: EDIT: Okay, even Wikipedia's Reply To template, of using " @Username: ", DOES NOT work. What is the point of a template,that isn't accurate to the site's code? The people running this site are failing. Hello. You are correct, I made a mistake and the ban was proper, indeed. However, I was already updating my own unblock request to address this. Then I get a notice for a edit conflict due to your response. It says that my edit just now is in the upper text box, but there is no upper text box. Therefore, Wikipedia's "Edit Conflict" template is erroneous, gaslighting, and just resulted in 10 minutes of my very valuable time being wasted. The subject of my edit regarded the fact that @Ian.thomson: weaponized Wikipedia's "rule" infrastructure, to patronize me about the idea of verifiability, when my own edit was simply qualifying a controversial topic with the word, "alleged". Let me ask you, @HighInBC:: Have you watched the publicly available video of World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane, falling straight down in six seconds? Your cohorts tell me that to say that building *might not* have fallen as a direct result of a plane crash that happened in a different building, is promoting a conspiracy theory. This was an ad hominem attack by Ian.Thomson: against my intelligence, and my saying Suction My Dick so matched his own attack upon me – that was TRULY a disrespectful attack upon my knowledge and intelligence sanctioned by the infrastructure of Wikipedia itself which defends the viewpoint that calls any holistic study a "pseudoscience" that uses the idea of "scientific status" which itself is unscientific to defame entire subjects unjustly and childishly as loony – that from my heart, I can genuinely say, that initially believed "Suction My Dick Gratitude Thanks" used to be IanThomson's own Talk page footer. And this is not an ad hominem attack; this is the truth. Someoneovahere (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Someoneovahere (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Someoneovahere (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Someoneovahere (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Someoneovahere (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Someoneovahere (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reply to HighInBC: EDIT: Okay, even Wikipedia's Reply To template, of using " @Username: ", DOES NOT work. What is the point of a template,that isn't accurate to the site's code? The people running this site are failing. Hello. You are correct, I made a mistake and the ban was proper, indeed. However, I was already updating my own unblock request to address this. Then I get a notice for a edit conflict due to your response. It says that my edit just now is in the upper text box, but there is no upper text box. Therefore, Wikipedia's "Edit Conflict" template is erroneous, gaslighting, and just resulted in 10 minutes of my very valuable time being wasted. The subject of my edit regarded the fact that @IanThomson: weaponized Wikipedia's "rule" infrastructure, to patronize me about the idea of verifiability, when my own edit was simply qualifying a controversial topic with the word, "alleged". Let me ask you, HighInBC: Have you watched the publicly available video of World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane, falling straight down in six seconds? Your cohorts tell me that to say that building *might not* have fallen as a direct result of a plane crash that happened in a different building, is promoting a conspiracy theory. This was an ad hominem attack by IanThomson: against my intelligence, and my saying Suction My Dick so matched his own attack upon me – that was TRULY a disrespectful attack upon my knowledge and intelligence sanctioned by the infrastructure of Wikipedia itself which defends the viewpoint that calls any holistic study a "pseudoscience" that uses the idea of "scientific status" which itself is unscientific to defame entire subjects unjustly and childishly as loony – that from my heart, I can genuinely say, that initially believed "Suction My Dick Gratitude Thanks" used to be IanThomson's own Talk page footer. And this is not an ad hominem attack; this is the truth. Someoneovahere (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Someoneovahere (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Someoneovahere (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2021 Someoneovahere (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Update: I was blocked because I accurately acknowledged on a Wikipedia page that Mohammed Atta did not bring down World Trade Center 7 with a plane crash in a different building, I was patronized by an editor saying that the word "alleged" breaks the verifiability of the idea that WTC 7 *definitely* fell directly because of Atta's actions, which was an ad hominem attack against my intelligence, and I responded by telling him to suction my dick because your idea of personal attacks needs to include top editors stating things in patronizing ways that disregard the obvious truth of the matter, or else this site is just as immature as a middle school lunch break with kids telling each other to suction each other's dicks because you allow rampant patronizing against anyone who calmly and accurately acknowledges the ridiculousness of the "theories" considered "verified", such as the idea that a plane crash in a different building would bring down another skyscraper to entirely vertically pancake in six seconds. Someoneovahere (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Someoneovahere (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We don't fight fire with fire here; if others make personal attacks against you, there are proper channels to deal with that. Furthermore, you seem to be here to promote your beliefs and not collaborate with others as to what an article should say, based on coverage in independent reliable sources, giving due weight, and treating fringe theories accordingly. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2021 (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.
@HighInBC: Hello, sir. I am high in LB. I am also a spiritual leader soul named Elijah who is bringing in the rudiments of ontology, and am almost certain to become famous. The number 9 shows the self-completing nature of reality itself.
Since I wasted your time, above at first, I would like to offer the gift of expansive understanding, because our world is rapidly changing, and the paradigm espoused by the lead editors of Wikipedia will soon be overthrown as truth is disclosed to bring about awakening and global peace. Here is the truth. :
I was blocked because I accurately acknowledged on a Wikipedia page that Mohammed Atta did not bring down World Trade Center 7 with a plane crash in a different building, I was patronized by an editor saying that the word "alleged" breaks the verifiability of the idea that WTC 7 *definitely* fell directly because of Atta's actions, which was an ad hominem attack against my intelligence, and I responded by telling him to suction my dick because your idea of personal attacks needs to include top editors stating things in patronizing ways that disregard the obvious truth of the matter, or else this site is just as immature as a middle school lunch break with kids telling each other to suction each other's dicks because you allow rampant patronizing against anyone who calmly and accurately acknowledges the ridiculousness of the "theories" considered "verified", such as the idea that a plane crash in a different building would bring down another skyscraper to entirely vertically pancake in six seconds. Someoneovahere (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@331dot: No, sir. That is correct. I am here to challenge the infrastructural premise of what an independent reliable source is. Because it is proven on television that a BBC reporter announced that WTC 7 had fallen, and turned to his correspondent on 9/11/2001. And WTC 7 can still be seen standing in the background of the feed, as she spoke about it having just fallen due to fire. If this is considered reliable, you're living in the upside-down. Someoneovahere (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@331dot: No skyscraper had ever fallen due to fire prior to 2001. I treat fringe theories accordingly, and respectfully qualify that it is alleged that fire led to the World Trade Center's collapse, when that scenario has never happened before to a steel-frame skyscraper on Earth. Thanks mate. Have a good life. Someoneovahere (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)