User talk:Other49states

Other49states, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Other49states! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

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 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 ~~~~}}.  --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Other49states (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I want to edit my own user page; I don't care how many students get bad info off your site. I don't care if you try to censor dissent, its your problem not mine.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=''I want to edit my own user page; I don't care how many students get bad info off your site. I don't care if you try to censor dissent, its your problem not mine.'' |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=''I want to edit my own user page; I don't care how many students get bad info off your site. I don't care if you try to censor dissent, its your problem not mine.'' |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=''I want to edit my own user page; I don't care how many students get bad info off your site. I don't care if you try to censor dissent, its your problem not mine.'' |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I see other users have now agreed with my complaint, and added their own references. Instead of pompous arrogant "admins" censoring everyone who tries to help wikipedia, maybe you assholes should understand how many US universities ban the use of your biased website from use in their classrooms.

Bonghead owes me and every reader of this site an apology. No one cares how many hours you "put in" to censor dissent

Question for administrator

Wikipedia needs to check the censorship of your admins like Bongwarrior. Three users were doing multiple rollbacks, but bongwarrior only censored me. Its just another example of wikipedia's horrid bias and insider cliques. Bongwarrior needs to have his censorship license revoked, and I want a public apology. He was wrong, I was trying to fix real errors on your website -- and the insider cliques that run your website made sure only the outsider was punished. Is that what wikipedia is about? FIX THIS WRONG AND STOP DRAGGING YOUR FEET!!!! --Other49states (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I fixed your unblock request and removed the admin help template as the admins will see this request when they process that. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Dane2007 thanks for the edit, I still can't edit my home page, and still have no idea why the users that undid my edits more than 3 times (a lot more) -- and this BongWarrior decides that only the new guy gets punished with an arbitrary ban. The insiders who undid my edit 6-8 times are still editing the page... and just to make insults worse, one is even making the edits I said were desperately needed.

Wikipedia is an insider clique, dissenting views are not allowed, and there are way too many silly wp:??? codes and whatever an "RS" is... clearly designed to discourage people who want to help but cannot dedicate weeks and weeks learning all their secret handshakes. Many of the articles under the economics section have serious bias -- in favor of Berkley interpretation of Keynesian policy, and in favor of only Western European economists (who agree with the Berkley Keynesian theories).

I did learn why many universities are so adamantly against allowing students to reference wikipedia for economics topics. Any student wanting to get a broad view of the world of economic schools of thought will only get puff pieces trumpeting academic interpretations of Keynesian ideas. Even User:Rjensen's attempt at adding other views describes Keynes as having an "innovative" proposal of a bancor... innovative? The Latin Monetary Unit in Europe preceded the bancor idea by more than a century (plenty of other examples, but it won't matter to wikipedia admins). Bretton Woods implemented SDR (special drawing rights) which aren't very different from Keynes bancor idea. SDRs are backed by IMF member contributions, bancors would have been backed by central bank reserves.

I suspect wikipedia will continue to protect insiders. It will continue to favor western european academic ideas above EVERYTHING and EVERYONE else. I found there is a whole page describing Criticism of Wikipedia articles -- the admins are well aware of problems, and they don't plan to address them. No wonder US universities don't trust wikipedia on many topics -- including economics. Admins won't listen to prominent critics in public forums, they aren't likely to care about me either. Thanks for trying, but you are wasting your time. Other49states (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)