December 2022

Hi The basis of! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#White supremacy revisionism at Western world are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Also, this had nothing to do with the subject of the discussion thread, which concerns an edit made at Western world by the user Rim sim (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am not making myself understood yet. Concerns as pointed out with my user account and my I.P. contributions were not addressed, and as such I am suggesting the community is confusing

controversy, of a social and political greatest relevance that certainly could be the reason for the distorted editorial style by Rim sim I am challenging. Not only is this the case I believe but as stated since opening the discussion, the argumentation (by Rim sim) introducing the concept of white race confusing Western United States with Western world is entirely questionable. The basis of (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note also, that present-day environmental colonialism may not be about the same issues (mining and such, for example) that used to be during the actual past Age of colonialism: nowadays could be about, other than colonialism reparationism, a matter of Western economic policies that less developed countries are required to follow while through their own process of industrialization, to "save the planet", since the Western community did confront global warming in science and economics, unlike less developed countries. I mean to note simply that it is a greatly broad political and social concern that can be confusingly affect editorial choices in this case. The basis of (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it’s impossible to tell what you want, except it has something to do with your views on climate change, which isn’t relevant to the noticeboard that you keep posting to. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you fancy the classical world but so doesn't fail classical history the very first sentence of the section as modified by Rim sim?

The concept of "the West" first came into existence with the emergence of the Roman Republic, the roots of which can be traced back to Ancient Greece.

Do you understand? Overnight Rim sim distorted the whole introduction just replacing the sentence on the East-West schism with some words on the

Classical world. This is what I am left to think. The basis of (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

In order to make yourself understood, you will have to clearly and concisely state what your concern is, naming the specific article, and if you are complaining about another editor, who that is, with supporting links. That is the purpose of a noticeboard. After some effort to figure out what you're really talking about, it appears that you disagree with an editor named Rim sim about the article Western world. What you think I "fancy": is irrelevant. I recommend that you discuss the issue with them directly, at Talk:Western world when your block expires. Keep it short, clear and to the point. Your opinions are inadmissible. Sources are mandatory.. The noticeboard exists for issues that can't be resolved at the relevant talkpage, and discussion there should be confined to discussion of specific, named sources, not general philosophical musings and personal reflections. Clear communication is essential to the writing of an encyclopedia. You have done the opposite. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably encyclopedia administrators do fancy the Classical world, because it is of a higher education. I bet it is an established communicational stance at Wikipedia as in writing in other online contexts never was I confronted with such "density" imitative of Classical knowledge. The basis of (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, by design, relies on academic sources as the best possible source for assertions in this encyclopedia. If you won't work within that standard, you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia is an encycloepdia, not an online forum, so your experience elsewhere on the Internet isn't relevant. We don't publish personal opinion. We also expect clarity of communication. Whether you think that is a fault or somehow "classical" (whatever that is) is irrelevant. Acroterion (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia noticeboards are for discussions related to the operation of the encyclopedia. They are not fora for personal musings on topics. Your conduct is disruptive. Please acquaint yourself with the purpose of noticeboards and talkpages before posting again. If you return to this behavior after the present block expires you may lose editing privileges entirely. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Western world for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:NOTFORUM violations by The basis of. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

CIR, soapboxing and personal attacks are enough to block me out of editing? This only can be the case for raising the argument of "religiousness, versus pornography, versus the administration's policies". I admit I am not competent with Wikipedia, I admit I attacked the user coming from "pornography", but that's bad attitude, not bad content additions. Thus something is wrong there on your side not here on mine. The basis of (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

So you admit you have a bad attitude and you're not competent? And you say something is wrong on our side? You were blocked twice before and didn't get this. Frankly this should have been

NOTHERE from the beginning. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2023 (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.

Not competent with administration's policies, I respect rules/laws. But content is not policies (policies govern rules, which govern content).

Or maybe it is policy. Clearly then if policies at Wikipedia are available to consult as they are, and even prove me right, it can only be a case of an administration abusing content twisting the minor rules. The basis of (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]