User talk:The Active Atheist/sandbox

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --The Active Atheist (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --The Active Atheist (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Hello Bonadeo, It seems we did get off on the wrong foot indeed. Firstly, I have loved wikipedia since it sprang to life. Several pages are usually open at any given time on my devices. I find its information to be reliable. When we came across the article in question, immediately I knew there was a problem. in hindsight, as often happens, I think I should have reported the article to wikimedia, where it could be dealt with. But, I did jumped the gun and put it on social media which is the current normal thing to do. I created first a wiki user page, to put what I had found all in the same place. I was outraged that wikipedia had been what i called hacked. Yes it was funny abu as donald, I tipped my hat to the hackers wit and clearly their ability. But I was also curious as to why that page did not make sense at all. The fact that it was misinformation, for a fact abu is not the leader of boko haram, with a hyperlink to donald trump just the first of four defaming of public figures. It at that time had been up 10 hours. No I am not a political activist, but I am an Atheist. I was mentioning none of that. Hijacking of information by media is one thing, but eg wikipedia I find unacceptable. The User page I believed was a general area for members to talk or share information, even your about wiki page's introduction highlights the idea of all information collectively being available to all people everywhere. 13 hours after the original edit by the anon person, it was re instated by you back to its original page. Within 60 seconds, you have disabled my page, which I didnt think was live as it stated that there exists no page called TAA (the active atheist) I was a little miffed when you flagged me for using humor, yes I agree encyclopedias are serious topics, but as I was not editing any page, I was a bit pissed off, especially when the page was not active. My User page was shut down instantly almost, where as a damming and defaming page in your encyclopedia was still active. Instead of a nice introduction and a dressing down, on the humor levels I imagine, you went right ahead and put a CSD on the account, followed by a disabling of the sandbox Yes I considered the sandbox a place for serious articles to be born, and was fully aware of the submit for publishing button, but as like games in sandbox mode, I didnt want to write anything, at that stage, I was compiling what I thought were ways information was and is being manipulated and spewed out as truth. That is can be hacked. This concerns me. You didnt even send a message saying, now listen here, you have done x,y & z and if you dont reign it in you will be-insert punishment, nor did you say, we have resolved the problem all is well. Nor ty for the heads up, I am sorry I missed it, have been afk for the last 13 hours. What you did was steel my resolve that ALL information held for public consumption is corrupt and there fore insidious. You have been at your post for a long time I saw, you clip wings everywhere. I shall never know what it was that I said that shut down an inactive user page, banned a sandbox option, CSD, placed on a watch list and now a red IP total ban, and because I know that all correspondence with you bonadeo has ceased, I will still say my bit. The very way you have treated this account not only refutes your motto, but points to a totally corrupt site, that exists under an umbrella of lies, and cowardice. The last thing I will say, I accepted your terms and conditions of conduct, had not thought to begin talk as I believed I was most definatly in an arena of people I did consider my peers, I most certainly did not feel confident to post anything formally, im not a writer and would not submit anything too soon for fear of inadequate word skills, I most certainly DID not edit nor attempt to edit any page, the page I did land on, was being citedreferenced from wikipedia, I got the information from your site bonadoe, and it only emphasizes a few points, 1. this site is corrupt, 2. it is not living up to its ideal of a sum total of human knowledge, 3. you are a hatchet man sent in to kill off what the likes of doc watson the level iv cleaner uppera doesnt need to fix, and 4, you are indeed everything I have said.If I do not recieve an email from you or a message thru here, then I shall be posting this everywhere I can to expose the very threat to all of us, the control of information and its manipulation destined for human consumption through mediums as highly regarded as wikiepedia.The Active Atheist (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)