User talk:IVonish

December 2022

Hello, I'm Bsoyka. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Quantum singularity—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Bsoyka (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did it not appear constructive? It’s more information than what any being can currently present, is it not? IVonish (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is “knowledge” presented that may be above your understanding, that is shown in a way where 1 can grasp it in a better manner not constructive? It’s doing more than what you are; which is “COVERING UP” the truth. (Unless you can disprove what quantum singularity is, that is.) IVonish (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about what you know and want to prove to others. Wikipedia compiles what reliable sources have to say about a topic. Ideas where "there is no proof and there is no way to verify it", as you put it, do not belong here.

Let me know if this makes sense. Bsoyka (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if this makes sense. I am not here to prove anything to others and especially you, I am just a person who has been abused and hacked by the world and tired of people stealing my hard’s life work of learning what LIFE is, so yes I will put my name there.

Actually, I’ve proved it by simply knowing what quantum singularity is, relativity, what is a fluctuation of what is a gravitational wave effect that would apply to the point of where time stands still and then is allowed to move again where superstring theory would take in effect, now if an energy which is of etheral were to contain that energy within those sequences, well now you have quantum singularity, which is a heat source that the sun’s core which actually accepts.

There, I just proved it to you. I have claims and evidence which are these very words. Can you honestly disprove any of the things I have said? IVonish (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So how can applied knowledge from multiple sources and using what you may know as the Mind’s Eye, even information all about space, time, and relativity.. If I don’t need to explain it, then I don’t have to explain it because I’m not fully capable to.

I have very evidently proven my knowledge and intelligence which is actually presenting DISCOVERY…. Can you disprove anything? If not, I believe my case stands… You have no right to take down my “factual information until disproved”. I bet you 1 million dollars I’m correct about it too. Willing to take it? IVonish (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is actually about spreading the good word of knowledge. I think I stand more for Wikipedia more than you ever will because all you’re wanting to do is hide the truth. Let others actually build upon the credibility.

You’re not that smart, especially to me if you think I’m wrong about quantum singularity. Sorry for putting it that way but I do not need a degree of any kind to prove that type of logic.

How dare you mess with my freedom of speech of what information is that you can not even begin to think of fathoming to disprove. IVonish (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please share a reliable external source that proves this.

We're all on the same team here. You're presenting content on an article about (what is currently noted as) a fictional concept as factual, which makes me have doubts, as I'm sure you can understand.

Wikipedia is just not the place to publish a discovery. We are not a primary source or even a secondary source. This is an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source and not a place for original research. Bsoyka (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let's kindly leave personal attacks out of this discussion and focus on content. Bsoyka (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that but everywhere I present understandable and valid knowledge, I get attacked because I’m an advanced being all thanks to things happening to me. I don’t need to fully apply what you consider math and science to concepts to fully understand them and what is fictional to you is not fictional to me.

Well, the only source I have are which of spiritual, religional, and scientifical notes and concepts that are done in my head.

If somebody were to say the sky is fictional before it was non-fictional would that make it fictional still? What I presented, with my sources and basics that are describing the very actions taken place in order to achieve this series of events in order for the process to successfully initiate is what proves what can be very real.

The only known person to know this information would be me. With a discovery at hand and your sources unable to validate or deny what my factual information is proving exists, which my explanation at hand is also backing up in terms of anybody willing to try disproving, would technically and in all means legally, rightfully would declare it as all and nothing but the truth of what is what is. IVonish (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So please. Can you please prove me wrong that it’s a very real process in which can be used for other sources of energizing certain technologies?

If not, at least propose a challenge to what my process of events that cause and effect the elements involved that make it possible?

If not… Then how is it not real? If something isn’t real to you or others but is real and known to others.. Doesn’t it make the 1 proposing the very real information that no other can propose more real and evident than anything else since nobody can even simply propose why it wouldn’t work?

That’s my case in this event and why I’m challenging it, so sorry about us coming off on the wrong-foot. I just say this because I have seen it done, done it myself, and know it works. Is there any way to even challenge the authority that my logic applies? If not, I believe I have broken all that is logic to those who can not even begin to try arguing against my very logical and reasonable argument. IVonish (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to present knowledge and let people challenge and/or present ways to what I provide in means that we can better represent and relay the information about what I KNOW is real and very evident..

If you can’t disprove my logic, then how is it fiction? That must mean therefore it is proven science to anything that can not disprove any concept or theory that I have even involved in the logistics of the event that takes place. IVonish (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I present my knowledge to what I thought was a “rightful” place to present knowledge when I’m too smart for things to understand? It’s not my fault I’m mentally challenged.

Instead of deleting my HARD work that I put in to Wikipedia to make it a better and more understandable place, I have random people who literally know NOTHING about that field of science trying to discredit and delete my valuable time presenting it to people. IVonish (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Bsoyka (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, no more posting of that then. IVonish (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. I’m quite literally talking to “Stars” right now. Things shall get better, I promise you that. IVonish (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And a big thank you, I’ve been very very upset lately because it feels like life is after me. I feel like the smartest and most balanced being in all existence that feels like he can stop this mind control thing…. IVonish (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]