TheAuthoritativeSource

February 2022

Hello, I'm Plantsurfer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Glutaraldehyde, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Plantsurfer 11:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Glutaraldehyde. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Plantsurfer 17:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Glutaraldehyde, you may be blocked from editing. Using language such as "a prick" is not appropriate language to use, even in edit summaries, to describe other editors. You will be reported if you continue to use such language. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Glutaraldehyde. Plantsurfer 22:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 03:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No reason or justification for the block was provided according to a block reason should be addressed in a block so that the user can understand the block and appeal if needed. This block seems to be part of a campaign of blocking with 5 blocks in the last hour alone. . TheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm curious as to any connection that you have to Endomorphosis who restored your edit two minutes after it was removed. In any event, it's pretty clear from your post here that the reason for the block is correct. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2022 (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.

Yeah I've been slacking on the block front! Explain this edit — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 04:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy to explain 1st as to the bias of the sources. i dont know if you have a PACER login, so i provided a news story with the gist of it.

Some would try to hide behind the fact that Factcheck.org was certified by the IFCN, however its certification was carried out by by Julie Homchick who has a self professed political agenda because Critical theory is founded with the intent to drive change its adherents must by necessity have an objective to drive change to.

This can be verified quickly on the phone with her office during business hours. ((redacted) (please let me know when you have called her so i can remove the information, its public but i dont want to draw to much attention to it.)) or you can email her for verification at (redacted)

i could provide a few other articles about factcheck.org's bias... but oddly enough factcheck.org deemed that information incorrect. They investigated themselves and found themselves innocent. odd that.

on to the rest of the edit.

The notations about the ministry of truth is obvious satire of 1984

This satire is relevant based on the small sample of edits i cited as references. Since 2018 Soibangla has been editing articles with a political agenda. It becomes pretty clear to anyone that reviews his edits. Nothing but politics, and clearly prejudicial.

As to the blocking, i kept this to the talk page, NOT an article. Most of the public barely knows the talk pages exist, and they are the appropriate forum for such discourse.

sorry forgot to signTheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

im not sure if you are offline, or if i need to use this tag to get attention TheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Only one open request is needed at a time. If you wish to notify a particular user, place {{u|User name here}} as it appears here(not in the edit window where I have placed coding to suppress its function) when you write a post. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless the most sensitive personal information is involved, Wikipedia matters are handled on Wikipedia for openness and transparency. We don't contact people off wiki related to Wikipedia matters. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

331dot one might wonder what your relationship with TheresNoTime is? After all she still has not given an explanation for the block and yet you state you agree with that which remains unsaid... could you be colluding off site in a massive conspiracy to block a small account?!??!??!! or is it more likely you just have a similar perspective to hers, and a similar method of jumping to conclusions? Cliques being what they are tend to think you both are just on the same page. I disagree with you both, but that's no reason to call it a conspiracy theory. I would ask you apply the same rational perspective. hell do you think the Users that send Thanks messages to me over my post were sock puppets or fellow members of some dark Cabal?

I doubt you really think that. The reality is i made a viable comment, that did not interfere with any articles, that pointed out what many users had a feeling about: Soibangla, is a biased political agent acting in bad faith. I did it without bad words, or dirty name calling, just a literary reference and citations of some of his work. The reality is you just disagree with the comments made, because the blatant political actor who has been active for 4 years on this platform has your sympathy. Reach deep down, and tell yourself that its not true. I dare you to lie to yourself.

So, its in your hands and i see atleast 3 options.

1st Fall to the darkside, keep lying to yourself, and keep me blocked.

2nd Split the difference, block me from his page to tell yourself your actions were not based in bias.

3rd Reprimand me for making comments in the wrong place, direct me where i should make them, and live by the spirit and word of the rules.

At the end of the day,your self respect is your own. I cant tell you how to treat it.

as to me? My ancestors are smiling at me imperial, can you say the same? TheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Obvious trolling. If you can make an unblock request without trolling, aspersions, or memes, you can try WP:UTRS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2022 (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.

The explanation the block is "not here to build an encyclopedia". Perhaps you missed it. You seem to be here to pursue a political agenda; it's not the location of your edits. If you are here to build an encyclopedia, please tell how. No problems whatsoever with my self respect. If you think I am losing sleep over this, I'm not. I have nothing else to say; your request will be reviewed by someone else, whatever happens will be up to the next admin, not me. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.