Jump to content

User talk:2601:646:8082:BA0:803C:1E13:647A:F161

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Refdesk[edit]

I know you like the refdesk, but please try to focus on things that are answerable, rather than soliciting speculation and hypotheticals. And please don't resort to pseudo-legal-sounding complaints when you cross bthat line. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the question of how getting rid of a central bank would affect money supply not answerable based on the laws of economics??? (If so, then I take the question back, but IF this is not the case and the question is indeed answerable based on the laws of economics, then it WILL be restored in its proper place, and User:Baseball Bugs WILL be held answerable for his abuse of power!) And BTW, removing the question without even giving the OP a chance to justify himself/herself is NOT ALLOWED by policy -- the right procedure is to hat it and therefore give the OP a chance to respond to any potential accusations of trolling, User:Baseball Bugs was IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION of established policy here (and this was far from his first time pretending that policy doesn't exist, either)! 2601:646:8082:BA0:803C:1E13:647A:F161 (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no more "power" here than you do. But how do you, with a grand total of 4 edits so far, know so much about policy? And the reason I reverted your entry is because "libertardarians" sounds like an attempt to call libertarians "retards", which is unacceptable - per policy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I missed the "libertardarians" - it was late, and if I'd noticed it I'd likely have blocked for trolling. @BB, this /64 range seems to spend a lot of time on the refdesk, mostly unproblematically. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have FAR MORE than just 4 edits under my belt -- in fact, I've been editing under various IP's since Bush Jr. was President, so I've had a great deal of time to learn about policy! And for the record, I had a VERY legitimate reason for asking this question -- if you must know, in the past few years I've become seriously involved in politics and have actually founded a right-wing political organization of my own with a focus on promoting national security, and it just so happens that our board of directors is in the process of formulating a detailed policy platform -- and, since national security is our focus, I want to take measures to preclude from the start any kind of alignment with the libertardarians (spelling is correct), given that they always seek to UNDERMINE national security (which, BTW, by law makes them terrorists, which SUPERSEDES any and all Wikipedia policies about civility, NPOV, etc. with regards to any remarks about them), and since one of their pet causes is ending the fed, I'm trying to formulate an argument for KEEPING the fed based on national security considerations, as opposed to purely economic ones! (I won't be explaining here in detail how increasing or decreasing the money supply affects national security, but if you want to know more about this, I would recommend that you start by taking a look at the topics of trade balance and autarky, and go from there if you still want more info after that!) 2601:646:8082:BA0:803C:1E13:647A:F161 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
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).

2601:646:8082:BA0:803C:1E13:647A:F161 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is illegal under the National Security Strategy of the United States, as has already been pointed out above

Decline reason:

So call the cops. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:15, 28 May 2024 (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.

This is a privately owned website. Your threats are meaningless here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is a privately owned website or not is IRRELEVANT here -- the NSS applies EVERYWHERE, both on public AND private property! 2601:646:8082:BA0:803C:1E13:647A:F161 (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your threats are irrelevant here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if your actions on here violate the NSS (as they arguably do, and as another admin's actions (specifically, those of User:Viennese Waltz) clearly did a few years ago) -- if that is the case, then you are BREAKING THE LAW and COMMITTING TERRORISM, and the DHS can get involved! 2601:646:8082:BA0:803C:1E13:647A:F161 (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. FYI, I am not an admin. And I have no idea what you're talking about. --Viennese Waltz 04:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes you DO know FULL WELL what I'm talking about (although you were NOT acting as an admin in that case, THAT much of what you're saying is true) -- five years ago (almost to the day) you posted comments on the reference desk which were BLATANTLY TERRORIST, as did your friend User:HiLo48! 2601:646:8082:BA0:E19D:4C11:C950:1DA8 (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. Did I? I would dearly love to know what on earth you're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too. Why don't you provide a link? I could do with a laugh. --Viennese Waltz 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:646:8082:BA0:803C:1E13:647A:F161&oldid=1228826558"