User talk:TsarBomba2 0

Hello, TsarBomba2 0, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. — goethean 21:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of AmourReflection (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

TsarBomba2 0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block was never necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again (i.e. forget password and then be accused of being a sock puppet), and I will make productive objective contributions instead. I have been falsely accused of sock puppet, when I did not have my password when logging in, and I have clearly been censored (page/section blanked continually), so created a new account, letting the other editors know that I have been censored as the NPOV tag was removed and added as a last resort, then removed again. If the block continues, I will no longer have respect for Wikipedia, as objectively, it will not have a NPOV. I am asking if Wikipedia is truly objective, or is this just an online encyclopedia where only one POV prevails under the illusion of having a NPOV?"

Decline reason:

Your original account was blocked for edit warring. You may not use any other accounts until that is cleared up. Kuru (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2013 (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 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).

TsarBomba2 0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language to talk (e.g. they were calling certain economists with Ph.D's in economics as "ducks", perhaps because they did not like their views). Only in my case, it was section blanking, not the entire page being blanked, but the 3RR exemption appeared substantially relevant, and in the spirit of attempting to maintain a fair, and balanced NPOV I was doing my best to follow the rules, but instead of page blanking I considered it reasonably applicable to section blanking, and thus I considered the relevancy of WP:Ignore all rules in order to still maintain a NPOV in the article, perhaps somewhat admittedly stretching the 3RR exemption, in the spirit of maintaining a balanced view. There is evidence of POV forking in this article, as it appears that many of the editors do not want to objectively accept a view point different from their own viewpoint on the same page (in the past they have pushed people into making a separate page (thus forcing a requirement of notability of an author in content when own article is created instead of content of article not restricted by notability alone.).TsarBomba2 0 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your original account was blocked for edit warring. You may not use any other accounts until that is cleared up. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:48, 29 December 2013 (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.

Invitation to comment on important issue in Fractional Reserve Banking

Hi, I am just reaching out to a few people that have previously made edits on the fractional reserve banking page. There is an important issue being discussed on the talk page which IMHO needs some neutral opinions. If you could make a comment, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Reissgo (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]