User talk:Middled

This is Middled's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

Some topics like the flat earth deserve proper Wikipedia pages written by people that know the subject matter to be true not written by someone who presents the information as a joke that only crazy people in denial believe.

I removed "the Flat Earth" from denialism because the shape hasn’t been proven to be a globe or flat so how can anyone be in denial about what it may or may not be? Since the shape cannot be proven people are going to look to Wikipedia and when they see all pages presenting the flat earth as a joke and the globe as serious fact it will greatly influence people’s opinions, that sounds like Wikipedia has taken sides abandoning all semblance of neutrality.

I also removed the section explaining how the earth is really a sphere and not flat from the Flat earth page because it is an opposing view, a completely different topic, and the last thing someone trying to read about the Flat Earth wants to see

If I had to make a Wikipage on a topic I didn’t believe in or agree with I would still make it the best possible page on the subject regardless of my beliefs.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Nothing because I don't feel like fighting for the truth or being insulted further than I already have been. I only wanted to enjoy the free flow of information and ideas with intersted in the truth not be persecuted and banned like a criminal I have no reason to push my knowledge on someone or waste time trying to convince strangers something is true or have a debate. I only wanted to try to write as much of the truth that I can before my failing heart gives out. I've wasted three precious days arguing with someone about the earth who doesn't listen to a word I say because they believe me to be drunk.

I think people who run conspiracy theory troll sceptic websites or groups (like Doug for example) selling their brand of crazy shouldn’t be allowed to edit Wikipages because all their work is bias toward making money. I’m sure Doug Waller sells lots of his books by using Wikipedia to reference them and to make external website links back to his page promoting nonsense and lies for profit.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

There is a block affecting me because an administrator changed my edit without any notification setting me up for a repeat vandalism accusation. If I had got a message informing me that my edit wasn't acceptable I wouldn't have done it twice in a row. That is extremely underhanded and exactly something I would expect from a dishonest person trying to suppress the truth through intimidation, insults and lies. I do not I never drink so being labeled as drunk on Wikipedia is extremely offensive to me on so many levels I take Wikipedia very seriously and I take this attack on my character seriously because if a college or friend wants to see my work or perhaps a prospective employer wants to check my page they will see "Vandalism possibly drunk". That is defamation of my character is clearly a personal attack, rude, and will cause legal problems for me because I live in a dry county where it is illegal to drink.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

“Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” -Friedrich Nietzsche

Yes you should consider just coming out and say Wikipedia is in fact bias towards popular lies instead of the less popular truths, people would be able to at least trust Wikipedia not to lie about telling lies. You can keep me blocked I'm forever disgusted by Wikipedia and it's current administrators, this is not a nice environment I want to spend time in for free. I only work with people I do not like when I get paid to do it. What incentives in this world would I have to work with people I consider to be lying trash for free? I think people who run conspiracy theory troll sceptic websites or groups selling their brand of crazy shouldn’t be allowed to edit Wikipages because all their work bias to making money. I’m sure Doug Waller sells lots of his books by using Wikipedia to reference his them and to make external website links back to his page promoting nonsense and lies for profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middled (talk • contribs) 09:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: New World Order Resistance Militia (March 8)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wiae was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

The comment they left was:

The text here doesn't describe the title subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:New World Order Resistance Militia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wiae /tlk 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Middled, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! /wiae /tlk 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Philg88. Your recent edit to the page Azadirachta indica appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Aluminium arsenide, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Moses Rothschild[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Moses Rothschild requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

Re your edit summary: What was the point of pressing the Save button before you've even begun writing the article? Anyhow, once you have begun writing it, if it has been deleted then all you need to do is recreate it. (Assuming that the person you're writing about meets notability guidelines....) — Smjg (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions of sourced text with two edit summaries declaring the earth is flat (one in more detail saying "The earth is flat and insulting the truth won't make it round") are the reason for this block. I don't know if you've been drinking or what, but this is unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Denialism[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Denialism without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 18:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it was false information, blatant unsourced opinions and lies. I ok with lying for others but I would expect pay. Middled (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16750 was submitted on Oct 18, 2016 08:13:36. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

people in denial believe. I removed "the Flat Earth" from denialism because the shape hasn’t been proven to be a globe or flat so how can anyone be in denial about what it may or may not be? Since the shape cannot be proven people are going to look to Wikipedia and when they see all pages presenting the flat earth as a joke and the globe as serious fact it will greatly influence people’s opinions, that sounds like Wikipedia has taken sides abandoning all semblance of neutrality. I also removed the section explaining how the earth is really a sphere and not flat from the Flat earth page because it is an opposing view, a completely different topic, and the last thing someone trying to read about the Flat Earth wants to see If I had to make a Wikipage on a topic I didn’t believe in or agree with I would still make it the best possible page on the subject regardless of my beliefs. If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? Nothing because I don't feel like fighting for the truth or being insulted further than I already have been. I only wanted to enjoy the free flow of information and ideas with intersted in the truth not be persecuted and banned like a criminal I have no reason to push my knowledge on someone or waste time trying to convince strangers something is true or have a debate. I only wanted to try to write as much of the truth that I can before my failing heart gives out. I've wasted three precious days arguing with someone about the earth who doesn't listen to a word I say because they believe me to be drunk. I think people who run conspiracy theory troll sceptic websites or groups (like Doug for example) selling their brand of crazy shouldn’t be allowed to edit Wikipages because all their work is bias toward making money. I’m sure Doug Waller sells lots of his books by using Wikipedia to reference them and to make external website links back to his page promoting nonsense and lies for profit. Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. There is a block affecting me because an administrator changed my edit without any notification setting me up for a repeat vandalism accusation. If I had got a message informing me that my edit wasn't acceptable I wouldn't have done it twice in a row. That is extremely underhanded and exactly something I would expect from a dishonest person trying to suppress the truth through intimidation, insults and lies. I do not I never drink so being labeled as drunk on Wikipedia is extremely offensive to me on so many levels I take Wikipedia very seriously and I take this attack on my character seriously because if a college or friend wants to see my work or perhaps a prospective employer wants to check my page they will see "Vandalism possibly drunk". That is defamation of my character is clearly a personal attack, rude, and will cause legal problems for me because I live in a dry county where it is illegal to drink. Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Yes you should consider just coming out and say Wikipedia is in fact bias towards popular lies instead of the less popular truths, people would be able to at least trust Wikipedia not to lie about telling lies. You can keep me blocked I'm forever disgusted by Wikipedia and it's current administrators, this is not a nice environment I want to spend time in for free. I only work with people I do not like when I get paid to do it. What incentives in this world would I have to work with people I consider to be lying trash for free? I think people who run conspiracy theory troll sceptic websites or groups selling their brand of crazy shouldn’t be allowed to edit Wikipages because all their work bias to making money. I’m sure Doug Waller sells lots of his books by using Wikipedia to reference his them and to make external website links back to his page promoting nonsense and lies for profit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middled (talk • contribs) 09:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, not drunk but not likely to contribute productively to the Wikipedia, either. Yamla (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2016 (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.

Ok, I'll accept that you weren't drunk. It just seemed a more likely explanation than that you would really believe in a flat earth. Sorry about that. I do wish that I had written books I could sell, that would be nice but sadly I've never written a book. I also wish I made money by editing, but again, no. This is a strange unblock request as you say you are ok with an indefinite block, which this of course isn't. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol that is actually a little funny. Apology accepted my friend I am sorry if I got defensive and accused you of having a hidden agenda. I figured you were another Masonic that know the earth is flat but promote the globe model. Sometimes I wish I didn't find out the earth is flat because I cannot put my head back in the sand and I refuse to pretend I'm dumb to fit in with society. Wow so you seriously believe the earth is a ball? lol well if their wern't so many negative things said about the flat earth on the flat earth pages more people might accept the truth instead of shying away from it out of fear of being ridiculed. I just want to see both theories on equal footing for the normal people who are unsure and want to find out more about the world they live on. Maybe we could collaborate one day Middled (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not present "both theories on equal footing" when one is beyond any credible doubt and the other is idiotic nonsense propagated by cranks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef[edit]

Please find another website to play on. Blocked indef, with no talk page access, there have been zero productive edits from this editor ever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]