User talk:Numbertruth

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Numbertruth. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! —Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much! I gave up editing front pages though. It seems Wiki likes certain things that are faulty like the PEG formula that was just a guess and has been used popularly no matter how faulty it is. It's such a fight to push sensible solutions but I will not give up. I hope through my talks that I wake up some minds to consider there is an option beyond keeping the blinds on! :) Numbertruth (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Please stop using talk pages such as Zyklon B for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Article talk pages are for discussing edits to the article, not fringe theories about the Holocaust. Also, if you are starting a new discussion, please use a new section and follow WP:TPG. - Mr X 15:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I am mentioning things which need to be posted in the main article. Stop citing rumors as facts. Why must you maintain the lies as opposed to setting the record straight with facts? And so you exert your power to keep the lies alive. You are being unjust. You are making a mockery of wiki.Numbertruth 15:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Talk:Zyklon B. - Mr X 15:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I simply want wiki to be a source for facts, not opinions. It's really sad that many editors who control what happens here prefer to keep the public in the dark abotu the truth of the so-called "holocaust". Wiki should be held in high regards, not be a source of MISINFORMATION! The FASCISM displayed by some power mongering, propaganda loving wiki editors shows the mockery of what wikipedia is suppose to stand for. Numbertruth 16:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Continuing the same behavior that led to your block in your unblock request won't lead to the outcome you desire. Kinu ^t/_c 17:45, 10 May 2014 (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.

Why? Emotions must trump reason? Is this what wiki stands for?Numbertruth 21:41, 14 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

wiki should uphold the truth and logic. why fight the truth so much? Perhaps in time you will be shown universally to be spouting big lies and then what would you have to say for yourselves? if you only look at the real information instead of the jewish dialog that wants no debate then you would be edified. ignorance in wanting to believe something does not rise to the status of truth. Numbertruth 12:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2015 (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.