User talk:MoreIntelligentThanAllFactCheckers

July 2022
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't spread hoaxes
See  Doug Weller  talk 08:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It was late last night when I posted, I must admit when I am over tired that I do not think as clearly as I can. Nothing about what I have mentioned, is a "hoax".
 * I'd like to suggest changing this..
 * "The New World Order (NWO) is a conspiracy theory which hypothesizes a secretly emerging totalitarian world government."
 * to this..
 * "The New World Order (NWO) is no longer a conspiracy theory, but there are conspiracies which hypothesize a secretly emerging totalitarian world government."
 * This is a VERY IMPORTANT distinction to make.
 * https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/we-must-work-together-to-build-a-new-world-order-china-russia-us/ MoreIntelligentThanAllFactCheckers (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is why we have New world order (politics). Doug Weller  talk 20:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your title line and heading is misleading.
 * The page should be titled "Conspiracies around NWO...". Not "The NWO is a conspiracy theory...". 69.207.68.119 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Our title, not your title, and we use common names found in reliable sources, your suggestion isn’t. Doug Weller  talk 05:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how your reply to my talk post, "we use common names found in reliable sources", is supposed to make sense in any universe. The reply read like a power tantrum.
 * The first two lines are simply incorrect and improper. Why do you refuse to correct this obvious misinformation ?
 * The first two lines work to set context rather than explain context. They seek to define the definition on characteristics rather than relay the actual definition with surrounding characteristics.
 * The page forces the "NWO is a conspiracy theory" but it is not. "There are conspiracy theories surrounding the various NWO interpretations" .. and that is the intended focus of the page.
 * Youtube uses the page (The first two lines appear) as a "fact checker" banner for NWO(political) and yet You sense no responsibility to provide a micro-alteration which will result in correct information for all on Youtube and Wikipedia WHILE still remaining true to your page content ?!
 * "reliable sources" is a bit of a giggle. - You do realize that this is a misnomer since 90%+ of the mainstream media in web, TV, and print around the world(is owned by the a handful of people) and trusted by less than 15% in total. I kindly ask that you rethink this over the weekend. If you do not make adjustments, I will plead my case on Medium.com and Twitter.  The article will include your name since you are the only one responding to messages. The NWO (in its' current form) is NOT a conspiracy theory. The page you manage mashes decades of the term use which obfuscates the current reality of the term NWO.  (I suppose that you'll eventually make the micro-change that I ask for.. probably in 10 years because the page is so far behind the curve.) Lastly;  I suspect that You are not an academic. An academic would not respond in such short toddler'esque power-tantrum manner.
 * MoreIntelligentThanAllFactCheckers (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Off wiki harassment can get you blocked. You should be discussing this on the article talk page where you will probably find other editors agreeing with me, yet you are going to attack me? Editors here do not need to be academics, just versed in our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller  talk 14:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * grow up Doug. You act like a child. 69.207.68.119 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Can I get some Twitter and medium mentions also!!! Thanks! Wiki fixer Gnome (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Me too, please. EEng 03:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are any of you intellectuals ?
 * I mentioned the Medium and Twitter as information of my next steps.. but you all seem to think we're teenagers with mood swings. Someone responded that it was a "threat"!? THAT IS LAUGHABLE and shows that person is inept.
 *  Do any of you know how to actually communicate with people ?  69.207.68.119 (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)