User talk:202.82.33.202

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

May 2007[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Sildenafil, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Selket Talk 09:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


August 2007[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Troll (Internet). 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. -- Satori Son 04:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

January 2008[edit]

Information.png

Hi, the recent edit you made to Haiku has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Get consensus before removing chunks of material[edit]

You should get consensus of other editors before you remove large chunks of material from an article, as you tried to do with Troll (Internet) Igor Berger (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are being disruptive[edit]

Please to do be disruptive as you have been here. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If that is your intent you are not helping anyone. Igor Berger (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior on the article talk page is bordering a block here Igor Berger (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Please reply on your talk page article not related talk when not talking about an article. Igor Berger (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You can also come to my talk page and ask me for help if you need assistance. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you send me email with your concerns? I have admitted (1) it is wrong to remove chunks and (2) I did not prepare the ground properly for the strong and apparently disruptive claims made. While I have been for the most part wrongly labeled disruptive, and was blocked as spinoza1111, at other times I have made positive contributions, including correcting the article on Herb Schildt recently. I would prefer it if we could discuss the removal of the bogus etymology on email (I am spinoza1111@yahoo.com) as well as my proposed contribution re the misuse of "troll".

User:spinoza1111 looks like you have been blocked for a week from editing. I would recommend you wait that week and go back to your original account that has your history. If you will edit under the IP anon account it will be seen as a violation of the block and will get you blocked indef, which will be ashamed because I think you are a constractive editor. Please do not try to edit under anon or a sockpuppet account. Give it a rest and try to learn about Wikipedia policies and come back and try again. Being blocked is not the end of the world. I also have been blocked at one time. It does not feel good but there is nothing you can really do but to wait it out. Good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually you have been blocked indef but that was like a year and a half ago. You should try to contact the blocking admin by email and requesting to be forgiven. Igor Berger (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That's never going to happen as long as Edward's behavior remains as bad as it was when he was indef blocked. The only reason he's still editing under this ip is because I have allowed it.--Atlan (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think I am going to ask a bunch of half-educated convenience store clerks, crazed religious fundamentalists and half-competent computer technicians to be "forgiven", you are deluded. I don't seek to be reinstated as an unpaid contributor to, a virtual slave of, a wikipedia which had become a conspiracy of insiders to exclude the original contributors and thereby issue a print version, cashing in on the labor of people who, instead of even being thanked, have been deliberately targeted for abuse by a new Hitler Youth.

As in the case of pornography, Mr. Wales' former business, you have replaced freedom with libertarianism and libertinism, merely enabling bullies, thugs and in some cases people with criminal backgrounds to steal labor in the Amerikkkan, slave-driving and Randroidian style. In one brief year, in 2005, gentleness, collegiality and decency was replaced here by a horde of really strange self-appointed jagoff cops, sporting various neo-barbaric heraldic markers announcing that they were "vandal hunters", "troll hunters" or, perhaps a new *Malleus Maleficarum" who started to destroy any content that was above their grade-school reading level.

I shall restrict my efforts in future to removing egregious cases of personal destruction carried out (without any of the so-called "vandal hunters" saying a god-damned thing) using wikipedia as a medium. Most recently, I got the record corrected concerning computer authors Herb Schildt and Kathy Sierra. The article on Schildt was created to destroy his reputation. The article on Sierra was created to describe her documented harassment as "alleged" and to misrepresent her as the usual hysterical bitch. In Schildt's case I pointed out that the article was NNPOV and an offensive biography of a living person and it was changed by a non-anonymous editor of some intelligence and decency, increasingly a wikipedia rarity. In the case of Sierra, I fought the usual battle *royale* with one Seth Finkelstein and demonstrated that forensically, posts which Sierra and her attorney have constitute a deposition and not "alleged harassment".

Schildt's article now identifies him properly and with NPOV as a best-selling computer author. Sierra's article now identifies her properly as being harassed, something which no-one can deny whether or not she has any legal recourse. If I am unable to change wikipedia, I shall continue to go through proper channels to rescue people's reputations, having experienced first hand what it means to be targeted.

Wikipedia is of course a libertarian fun fair, isn't it? FYI, British historian E. J. Hobsbawm calls libertarianism the anarchy of the lower middle class, and that's what's happened to wikipedia. People who can't write a coherent sentence tell people who can about "verbosity". A common interpretation unknown in Amerikkka is called "opinion". Philosophy articles become unreadable because convenience store clerks and religious head cases don't even understand that you cannot write about philosophy without doing it.

And above all, attention is diverted from learning to personalities and a game of Survivor.

I can write and I have published and been paid since 1976. I don't need a vanity press, which is what Wikipedia is, for Jimbo on down. I warn my students away from it since it is a vile and monstrous thing, constructed as were the blood-stained monuments of old by slaves who are then destroyed, their life's blood in the mortar.

Edward G. Nilges

I didn't read beyond the first line, but I agree you shouldn't ask to be "forgiven". That's just stupid. Anyway, it's exactly these diatribes that got your account blocked. I really do wonder why you're still here though, if you think this place is so horrible.--Atlan (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You do have some valid points but not everything is black and white there is gray. And if we do believe Wikipedia is an extreme of this or that what do you think the society is, because Wikipedia mirrors society. So do not give up! Igor Berger (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Rand Edits[edit]

If you wish to add the views of notable third party authors to this article, then by all means do so or bring those authors to our attention. However, please refrain from using the Talk page to make demands that are unsupported by either Wikipedia policies or credible research. Idag (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My demand was that she be removed from the philosophy project and this has been done. It was based on more than "credible research". It was based on the fact that I know what philosophers do.

The issue is closed until I see some indication that she is part of a "philosophy" project.

You are not in any position to make demands. I'm sure you're smart enough to know that.--Atlan (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Signing comments on talk pages[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --77.96.133.241 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Ayn Rand. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Atyndall93 | talk  04:52, 22 April 2008 (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.

Information.svg Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Ayn Rand, you will be blocked from editing. Please just stop, thankyou

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), you will be blocked from editing. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
I am bringing wikipedia's persecution of contributors to the attention of Prof. Lawrence Lessig and the Electronic Freedom Foundation. I am forming a group, offline with respect to Wikipedia, for victims of this sort of treatment.

Your Comments[edit]

I wanted to make a few things clear

  • I am not right wing, nor left wing for that matter.
This is what people who don't read a daily newspaper and who are typically, and astonishingly, ignorant, like to say and as such you are the constituency of Fascism
  • I am not a randroid, a randist, a store clerk, a teenager, or un-educated in philosophy.
Oh? You display on line the personality of a nasty little clerk who's ignorant of philosophy. You haven't addressed, for example, my point that someone so addicted to retail and wholesale ad-hominem cannot be a philosopher.
  • I do consider myself an objectivist
There is no such thing, as Sydney Hook showed, as a bonafide philosophy of "Objectivism". It is a collection of opinions, and, son, opinions are like assholes, as I've said. Everybody's got one.
  • The quote on my user page is from the band Rush, not Rush Limbaugh.
That's even worse because instead of reading philosophy you quote rock stars.
  • I don't post anonymously. My account is in my very own name.
Good.
  • I don't fill up pages with vitriolic insults against those who don't agree with me.
The insult is that I make sourced and carefully constructed arguments to be met with the equivalent of the blank stare of ignorance from people who are proud of that ignorance: they think it makes them "objective", only to have my time wasted and reputation ruined by schoolyard bullies who are now unleashed on grownups in Adorno's prophesy: that Fascism comes when schoolyard bullies attack their teachers in "the nightmare of childhood".
  • I do not care if you've written 20 books, nor who you are complaining too. Your posts are rude, sophmoric, and you seem unable to deal with others opinions if they don't agree with yours.
Who's insulting now, punk? And who can't spell the key insult, punk?

If I were you I wouldn't want the embarasment of drawing others attention to what you have said in the course of your editing history here. It's you life and reputation however. Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The schoolyard bully, who hasn't mastered his own self, endeavors first to be the gang leader of that disordered self, and then to claim that he represents the views of "normal" people with reputations to protect. But in his ignorance he hasn't done his homework. He professes, as you do, weariness with texts as if he had "read all that shit", like the thug on the bus who attacked my son for reading Lukac's History and Class Consciousness but gave no evidence, in fact, that he had read all that shit and was merely troubled by my son's uniqueness on a bus where everyone else stared dully out the window, as you stare at your goddamn computer screen
Punk.

Information.svg With regard to your comments on User:Ethan a dawe: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Use the talk page, and don't attack people.  Atyndall93 | talk  13:03, 29 April 2008 (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.

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism, such as the edit you made to Talk:Ayn Rand, continues, you will be blocked from editing. Regardless what another editor has said to you, do not attack them, this is a voilation of Wikipedia policy. Reply civilly.  Atyndall93 | talk  13:09, 29 April 2008 (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.

Issues with users[edit]

Hello, anon. If you have an issue with a specific editor, such as Ethan a dawe, it is best to take that up on the users talk page, or a third party such as WP:RFC/U or WP:WQA. Long comments to other users posted on article talk pages is disruptive. Concise suggestions regarding possible improvements the article at hand (i.e. Ayn Rand) are welcome, but please don't continue your current communication patterns as they are becoming less and less productive at achieving meaningful dialogue. Regards, Skomorokh 13:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do me the courtesy not to talk about dialog. Censoring people isn't "dialog": it is terrorism.
Ethan A. Dawe has NOT ONCE replied to my analysis of how from the NPOV a learned discipline establishes itself as a pattern of discourse over time, despite the fact that I provided sources such as Jurgen Habermas, as well as sources on Rand's standing as a "philosopher" from known philosophers.
He is the thug here. You are invited to join the Yahoo group stopWikipediaAbuse. It is a "virtual labor union" in response to this virtual slavery and theft of time constituted in taking a person's contributions and then harassing him out of wikipedia.

Blocked from editing[edit]

Editing of Wikipedia from this IP address has been blocked for six months, since it represents evasion of the indefinite block of User:Spinoza1111. This matter has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not evading the block of spinoza1111. I do not want to be a member of wikipedia until it is taken out of the hands of Randroids and convenience store clerks.
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

202.82.33.202 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

See below

Decline reason:

If you can give me a fifteen word reason as to why you should be unblocked, Spinoza1111, without using the words "Ayn Rand," "pornographer," "fascism," "Amerikkkan," and derivatives thereof, I will consider your arguments.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

DECLINE REASON NOT GIVEN! THIS IS FASCISM! "NO" IS NOT A DECLINE REASON!

And "Ryulong": no, I shall NOT give you what you want. My unblock shall be based on the fact that wikipedia, started by a pornographer to make a quick buck by using virtual time slices of slaves, following as far as I can see Ayn Rand's fuck-you philosophy in the Amerikkkan tradition as a form of fascism [sic: learn to spell and learn to read], I'll take this, if I have to, to the nth derivative: the media, courts of law, and the end of wikipedia if necessary.
I'll be God damned if I let people who hate texts create a monstrous text and set themselves up as "scholars" on the order of Alfred Rosenberg, NOT by courteously and collegially dialoging on issues without this profoundly insecure readiness to be oh so insulted, but by the electronic destruction of people: which I prophesy shall be physical assault at any wikipedia conference, in which the victims gather to protest this Amerikkkan bullshit.
REMOVE THE BLOCK
It "facism" was a typo. Still, you are not presenting me any harrowing arguments as to why you should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, specifically without using the words I asked you so nicely not to use, and in a succinct, precise, and terse manner. Simply bandying about words and phrases such as "Jimbo Wales is a pornographer" and "Amerikkkan" doesn't show me that you should be given back the privelege of editting Wikipedia's articles. As an administrator, we do not want to read a 12 page thesis as to why you should be unblocked. Give me a two sentence maximum reason why you think you should be unblocked, and relate it to why you were blocked in the first place, and not use the buzz terms you filled this page with earlier.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Forget it, PUNK. I'm not wasting my time with dyslexics who pretend to understand texts they haven't read. Ethan A Dawe is lying about me on the admin talk page. I submitted a decision procedure on how a learned profession admits members and nobody has given any evidence that they've read this because like little baby girls, like Mama's boys, you're "insulted"...and like schoolyard bullies, you care nothing for the pain you inflict on people. You've never endured real give and take as a scholar because you're convenience store clerks and computer nerds and you make me physically ill. Remove the block because wikipedia belongs to the people who CREATE CONTENT, not to the Hitler Youth.
You clearly are not understanding what I am asking you. As such, I see absolutely no reason as to why you should be allowed to edit Wikipedia if you cannot figure out how to work with others. I have also removed the essay you put here on your talk page as you can't seem to figure out that it's in there because it makes this page ungodly long in code and in page length. If you wish to edit in the future, throwing words like "Hitler" and "Amerikkkan" aren't going to get you anywhere. From this point on, this page will be protected such that you will not be able to edit it for a period of time, because you are abusing the editing priveleges during this block.
Remember in the future, you catch more flies with honey.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Once you calm down, you may wish to contact the arbitration committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to request insight on your block and possibly getting unblocked. However, they are even less likely to pay attention to publication-worthy diatribes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

December 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ayn Rand, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TheIntersect (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for returning to the same tendentious edits as led to the prior block. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

June 2009[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ayn Rand. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dr.K. logos 06:55, 23 June 2009 (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.
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing and block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Icestorm815Talk 00:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(Racist misuse of my name removed)

Hello[edit]

Welcome back, Edward. This is a quick way to get another 6 month block, not that you would really care. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you that using yourself as a source for your own POV is wrong. Happy new year and see you around.--Atlan (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I won't make the edit: although in academic writing, people do source POVs with their own publications. Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler was both suggested and edited by Dan Appleman, a well-known authority on VB. Therefore, I ask that you make the edit after examining the book at Amazon and at Apress.