User talk:KirklandWayne

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Destinyseeker89 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Destinyseeker89. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bbb23 Really thought I had time to spare to write my comments on the case, except the case closed much too quickly.[1] Shouldn't there be at least 24 hours to allow comments to defend oneself, even if one is disruptive? But if I am still allowed to comment on my investigation case here, I will now say that I am not going to appeal my block.

But also to User:Mesocarp that I didn't edit that Sri Lanka economic crisis article last week either, and they should know I went to the talk page because I didn't want people to think I was FobTown.

It was rather User:Qiushufang and User:CurryCity who had last week mentioned me on the Talk page of the Sri Lanka economic crisis. They were the ones who were saying I was FobTown and talking about SPI.[2] Intitially I had just wanted to add in 3 edits in with good faith with my account and probably wasn't even going to come back. But returned to reply to those editors to not confuse me with FobTown.

They had newly brought FobTown to my attention, and out of an interest and shared familiarity, it wasn't even hard to find a user hounding User:LilAhok and do a little research and attain valid info to donate to them.

https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=OneWordWonder&users=RhodeScholar&users=FobTown&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

Also I don't think it's okay to be considered to "grind an axe" as claimed by Mesocarp when it's natural to point out whenever an academic makes significant errors that shouldn't had been made.

Like well-read people, I am not the only one who would know the facts that Chellaney was incorrect on many things on Sri Lanka. Even Mesocarp wrote to me seemingly agreeing on that.

On that note, I do actually agree that, at this point, the overall consensus in the political discourse seems to be that Chellaney was off the mark in various ways. The article should reflect that, for sure,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180233900

And for my edit, I mostly sourced those words from Chatham House, and did not inherently say anything incorrect there. Not sorry for myself quoting facts and arguing against disinfo.

This chapter has disproven the debt-trap diplomacy claims surrounding Hambantota Port. ... Sri Lanka’s debt trap was thus primarily created as a result of domestic policy decisions and was facilitated by Western lending and monetary policy, and not by the policies of the Chinese government. China’s aid to Sri Lanka involved facilitating investment, not a debt-for-asset swap. | Chatham House Report Conclusion

[3]

I didn't come here looking to get bogged with the sticky wiki politics, and hoped to avoid that.KirklandWayne (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to appeal, what do you hope to accomplish with this post...? 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 05:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]