User talk:MattKiefer

April 2023

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, remove the book reference, then. Did you have to remove the whole passage ? To me it seems like, wikipedia lets people edit, and later reverses any change - at all ?? MattKiefer (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have a policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability) which means that any change that doesn't cite a source that meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources will be reversed. That's one of the ways we ensure the encyclopedia stays accurate. MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Phoenicia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot for the life of me puzzle out what you were trying to say here. Almost none of that is true. Can you explain you intent? Sam Kuru (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same with this material; I simply cannot see the description of anything even remotely resembling a 'stock exchange', or auctions, etc. The chapter you're using as a source is brief, so it should be easy to spot - can you supply the direct quote from that work that supports your paragraph? Sam Kuru (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... 6) Finance: They teach the wrong content. You can trace all Finance content back to stock exchange marketing. They don't even mention banks because banks don't sell out. It's all about "returns" and returns are completely unrelated to money. Just free stock exchange data. Bottom line, you wikipedia guys are fully aware that you need more change than just a few paragraphs. And currently, all your mismanaged entries form silly stories. Consistent silly stories. MattKiefer (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I asked you. I asked you "can you supply the direct quote from that work that supports your paragraph?" Will you please supply that? Sam Kuru (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no. Because I didn't spend three lifetimes inventing & backdating madeup nonsense. Do you understand how "marketing" works ? Shall I fiddle with "marketing" too ? MattKiefer (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entries: 1) Auction: they would matter more, if there were no banks. Thinking that way is a thing. 2) Stock Exchange: History: auctions mattered there because there were neither banks nor money. 3) Banks: all bank history prior to 1980 is made up because there were no banks. 4) East India Company: no one teaches any of that anywhere. If you believe that, it seriously misguides you. 5) Phoenicia: Romans never met Phoenicians. Else the article would make sense. MattKiefer (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to 2001: A Space Odyssey. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page.

Sam Kuru (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given your response above where you've admitted to adding fake sources, and this last diatribe added to a live article, I'm convinced you're not here to contribute constructively. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, your problem is a lot bigger than you think. You're not credible. If I actually know something of interest, and I built my own wikipedia page - you guys can always take it down. Blackmail me. And sell the content to Britannica. You'll only attract 5 year-old content writers because they can't foresee things. How are you funded, anyway ? MattKiefer (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]