User talk:Boarphomet

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not "Brad Watson, Miami". It's a little ignorant also to associate me with likely someone who just doesn't share the admin's views to likely quash some sort of alternative viewpoint.

Decline reason:

Even if this wasn't a duck quacking into a megaphone, the edits show that this account is WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2018 (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.

And yet your posts are the same material he'd post. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's a lot of people out there that have a lot of material that others might post that might sound the same. That's you're trying to link some sort of genetic fallacy as perhaps you don't want to accept other known opininos. How would linking "English Gematria" to the best available source in English Quballah be some sort of blockable offense? Did you block the people who wrote the whole section being linked too? "close enough imitator" sounds more or less you don't like a popular and verifiable common point of view and not doing a useful service to the wiki cause. Boarphomet (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

You be posting with a comparable level of knowledge (including vocabulary) that Brad Watson would have. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: What do you think about this and this? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're going in a loop here. If you don't like the subject matter that isn't my problem to convince you to change some sort of personal viewpoint. It seems you're using admin privileges to prevent appropriate edits based on the topic rather than credibility and merit. If you don't like an edit, challenge sources, go to the talk page, and so on. What you're saying is similar to "this Christian is writing a lot of about Christian stuff so he must be a sock puppet of this other person saying similar" Note on that 59 edit I went back to the talk page and didn't violate any rules. However obviously I need to establish the basis for the 59 comment is logical building a (cited) foundation that isn't original research; hence i backed off. If you don't like the concept of the Septenary Cipher that isn't my problem to convince you personally. Someone writing on English Gematria is probably going to sound similar to someone else writing on it. Boarphomet (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's more specific than that, and it has nothing to do with my emotions. Trying to blame me is going to accomplish nothing. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Explain "If this is somehow actually not, he's a close enough imitator that we're not gonna see any difference". What am I intimidating? I'm on the new side of wiki. Perhaps this person is too but has similar knowledge. I don't know if this other person is posting unverifiable garbage or really care to review that user's entries. There's obviously someone out there that has a similar opinion that perhaps you've had an issue with. "We're not gonna see any difference"...??? I'm not this Brad Miami whatever person. This doesn't appear to be meeting wiki's civil guidance.Boarphomet (talk)

Brad was blocked for repeatedly uploading very specific WP:FRINGE material beyond the point of disruption. Your posts before the block were almost identical to his, and your posts since are distinct only in a very particular way. This small, singular, but pointed difference (which I won't spell out because it makes it easier for Brad to figure out how we spot him) is enough that I will say that I appear to have been wrong and that I'm sorry for this block.

I'm going to unblock you, but I want your assurance that you've read and understand the material in the following section. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for that unblock. As noted, the Septenary Cipher being rejected as not being mainstream is like saying similar to the Caesar Cipher or similar (even the Hebrew/Abjad numerals) is also not accepted; Note below per your unblock request. Boarphomet (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement however I still need to discuss English Gematria; I don't believe in Flat Eath

I've read over your summary on policies and agree to them. Hence if you can't tell, I'm building something that is a little lacking on Wiki in a way complaint with them; initially I might not have with the "59" edit; original research however I posted it in the Talk section and not the main page. Trying to prove the occult/esoteric is kind of difficult however...

https://www.unilad.co.uk/sport/teen-who-overslept-after-late-night-netflix-binge-still-won-olympic-gold/

Red Gerard; note the artible above talkign about his name... Red Gerard in the Septenary Cipher = 59

http://time.com/money/5002378/bitcoin-creator-nakamoto-billionaire/

Note Time's reference to something sounding like John 1:3.... Based on your user page claiming Christian I suspect you can see it in the article.

Note the references to 666, 59 (nearly 6.0, over 5.8)... If you follow crypto that article forshadowed the price of bitcoin effectively perfect in the last two months. The media is using the Septenary Cipher and references to 59. I'm not discussing any conspiracy theories here however the Cipher should be presented so others can make their own conclusions.

I suspect you had an issue with this other guy writing about flat as fact along with those other items. Marty Leeds is a known author on this topic and English Gematria. No, i do not believe in his (Marty's) flat theory or would write about that unless writing on him in particular. I love his work on English Gematria and think he's brilliant however goes off on a tangent on that item. Keep in mind though Isaac Newton believed in alchemy but doesn't discredit his other contributions. I do give merit to Holographic Universe theory and try to convince myself that's what he's trying to describe. True or not that is what i tell myself.

Linking 59 to Jesus Christ, IN GOD WE TRUST (current legal challenges to the "59" link in the 7th circuit are pending ruling) as pointed out can't be original research per the "truth" comment above. Note Aleister Crowley also changed his name to cipher to 59. David Bowie 37 (a reference to star numbers/Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew). This stuff just needs to be talked about, i believe valuable, and should be on Wiki similar to Hebrew Gematria, Greek, and Abjad numerals. That's just what i'm interested in writing about.

The Septenary Cipher though really needs to be properly included on Wiki and can be divorced from flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

I'd like to revert my edits on Arithmancy and my linking English Qabalah's applicable section to "English Gematria on Gematria.

I believe my edits weren't so far off banning was warranted.

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).

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

Request reason:

Ian.thomson said would unblock above. Sorry but i'm not sure how to get his attention. I'm a little new at wiki markup. However i must point out that I Gematria is typically part of religious beliefs / directly related and in many cases likely protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and how Wiki must operate. Wikipedia can post a policy on WP:NOTHERE and WP:FRINGE however mind you has to treat people equally on these religious topics. This "don't rock the boat" couldn't floating in court long as the user is being civil. The reason for being uncivil rooted in religious descrimination of a few bad admins might be easily overlooked. It sounds like religious discrimination might be happening against minority faiths/beliefs likely including User:Brad_Watson,_Miami after reading over his sockpuppet case. It looks more like a witch hunt against people who want to express these views. "Brad's" probably a Chaos Magician, Thelemite, Satanist, or similar and just might not know his rights. Please cease and desist or if possible forward to someone at wiki with a better understanding/explanation on why this is acceptable. I'm raising an issue and would appreciate not being penalized for pointing this out. Boarphomet (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Editor has been unblocked since yesterday.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2018 (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.