User talk:Logicalinterventions

January 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm 64andtim. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to NunatuKavut have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. – 64andtim ^(talk) 02:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the links considered inappropriate? So, I tried removing information because it was false information, and was to to not remove information but to put up additional information. Now that I put up additional information. I am blocked. So, really, I am not permitted to edit Wikipedia at all. Don't you think that if it's inappropriate then they shouldn't be doing it? It's their factual history. Logicalinterventions (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not fighting vandalism and spam, you are enabling it. A good editor strives for correctness and consistency. You just deleted the truth to keep the lies consistent. What you are engaged in is propaganda and fascism. Propaganda - "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view". Fascism is the suppression of the opposition. There is no greater demonstration of suppression of opposition than "blocking". Wouldn't you agree? When one changes from a mix of Metis to full-blooded Inuit over twenty five years, one gets inconsistencies, like the one you just deleted as inappropriate and "blocked" me for. {{unblock|your reason here}}

{{unblock| because not to unblock is fascism}} Fascism is Nazism.

Nazism seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Logicalinterventions (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming. 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below this notice. Materialscientist (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock| because not to is fascism}} Logicalinterventions (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those who block can't defend their actions. A good editor strives for correctness and consistency. Editors shouldn't be blocking other editors they should be working to ensure correctness and consistency, and don't have to block anyone to achieve this. Those who block are (Personal attack removed) - it's why they block.

(Personal attack removed). Logicalinterventions (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect a reply from (Personal attack removed). Just keep blocking people until you get bored of it, or you yourself gets banned indefinitely. It's inevitable. Logicalinterventions (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is necessary to protect the integrity of the project, from, say, users who commit personal attacks against other editors as you did above. The only way to ensure consistent following of NPA is to restrict editing privileges of people who refuse to abide by it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is not necessary to protect the integrity of the project, the truth is. Once the truth is gone, all integrity is gone. Regardless, how the editors feel. When you block, you deprive people of speaking the truth, as you are doing while blocking. Once you are known to be a liar to spare the feelings of editors - all integrity is gone! It wasn't a personal attack, it was an explanation of the truth. "Blocking" is a personal attack. If editors are being blocked, then editors are not doing their job. Logicalinterventions (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]