User talk:68.83.221.95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Al Jazeera. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —DerHexer (Talk) 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to AT&T WorldNet, you will be blocked from editing. Natalie 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your final warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Nadia Abu El Haj, you will be blocked from editing. Natalie 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Firstly, there is always an option to add a new message - it's the little "+" tab at the top of the page. Also, please sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes (~) after the message. One final technical point: you do not have an account as you are editing as an IP address, and in any case accounts cannot be deleted at all. They can be blocked, as can IP addresses, but this is merely a technical tool that prevents that particular account or IP address from editing for a period of time.
Secondly, for someone I have never had a conversation with you seem to be comfortable making a lot of statements about what I believe. "You believe that there is one truth when truth is relativistic. This truth drives you to ignore and delete facts which are the foundation of history. This is the path to a totalitarian state such as the Soviet Union. You are too young at 23 to know much of the world or how it works." I don't believe I have ever stated, nor do I believe, that there is one truth. And it's quite a leap in logic to assert that preventing you from adding "THESE GUYS HOST THE AL-JAZEERA NETWORK -- THE PROPOGANDA OUTLET FOR OSAMA BIN-LADEN" [1] to AT&T WorldNet is going to send the United States down the path of totalitarian statehood. Perhaps you should pick up a print encyclopedia and flip through it; let me know if you find any all caps declarations about a corporations sponsorship of terrorism. Something tells me I'll be waiting a long time for that report.
You may feel that you are being censored, which is more than your right. But this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, not an op-ed, not a comment thread on a news site, and not the place to be reporting anyone's opinion as fact. And it certainly is not acceptable of you to make edits such as [2]. This is patently and blatantly contrary to our various stated policies. You will not find a single administrator who will claim differently. Natalie 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the technical Info

"How would you have that I know you? By the look on your face? The cut of your dress? Or the actions which take place?"

What do you know about an encyclopedia? Do you think it is about rules strictly applied? Diderot thought it was about ideas freshly sown. Revolutionary ones at that. He spent his life harassed by censors. And after his great work was completed it was a timid printer who blotted out every controversial line, that society might not be too offended. So much for enlightenment. I can hear the printer now: "A line at the top in all caps? Mon Dieu! We can't have that. (scratch, scratch)" (truth must always appear at the bottom of the page, in a footnote that nobody reads, or better yet, in the endnotes, which will be supplied upon request)

But I know what you think. From your own words. You "fight vandalism"...

Given the info on al Jazeera, you might have changed the font, placed it lower on the page (where Wikipedia puts all "controversial" information, I wonder why, b/c that is the safest convention? news used to go at the top). But instead you deleted the facts, banished the contributor, and did it all with the holier-than-though certitude of one who is enforcing the rules to protect the status quo. That, darling, makes you an aggressive ... conservative.

So now lets look at that nice clean AT&T page you have "fought" for. We see much info on the corporation's former names. Many of its lovely corporate logos. And not a word about their connection to the most important issues of the day. How nice and safe you keep things, dear. How comfortably boring that nobody may bother to read it at all. Well, many a corporate shareholder (and their elected stooges) would thank you for your busy efforts.

(meantime, in Washington, a few "vandals" who think otherwise took to the streets, that things might change, as they ultimately did in Diderot's time, no thanks to timid printers . . .)

[edit] October 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Meghan O'Sullivan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BelovedFreak 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] Re:Unjustified Attack on my Edits

The first edit you made was non-neutral, unsourced original research. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. You made the second edit as I made the first, so it was automatically reverted by the software I use. I apologise if that was a legitimate edit, I am unfamiliar with the subject, however it does seem to be somewhat POV and out of context. Please remember to sign your posts on talkpages. --BelovedFreak 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like your soapbox to me. You seem to get a lot of kudos for "vandal fighting". Maybe you should stop and think who you are fighting for. Are you fighting to keep nice clean whitewashed portraits of Bush lapdogs in your Wikipedia? Free of any and all niggling pertinent FACTS? I've read a lot of Wiki articles that do NOT have sources on them, and they are not deleted. So you deleted mine b/c your uninformed POV is better than my informed POV in your opinion. Which strikes me as knee-jerk ignorant censorship or self-aggrandizement rather than actual editing. At least try to think about what you are doing.

Indeed I do think about what I am doing. Thanks for the advice though. --BelovedFreak 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your censorship makes you a politician, BelovedFreak, not an editor.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Dan Bartlett, you will be blocked from editing. BelovedFreak 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Anya Kamenetz. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. BelovedFreak 07:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.