Hello Username550, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! JianLi 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vanguard Ui may2006.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Vanguard Ui may2006.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I've screwed up your discussion page :P but we're attempting to get GA status for the MMORPG article and one of the recommendations was the provision of fair-use rationales for each of the images related to the article. Since you've posted the following:
Thanks for uploading Image:34fxnbm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:34fxnbm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Vanguard classes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
A tag has been placed on Template:Vanguard classes types requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Non-free use disputed for Image:Ffxi_birdnm_fight.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Ffxi_birdnm_fight.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use Image:Sirius_sportster_reciever.jpg[edit]
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Sirius_sportster_reciever.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vanguard logo white.gif)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Vanguard logo white.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Xcircle.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the references given regarding her "death" are reliable sources. One of them seems to be written in jest (and written in April). They should not be re-added. ...discospinstertalk 22:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Herpes simplex has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Reach Out to the Truth 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Boomshadow. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Boomshadowtalkcontribs 04:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated Vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY(TALK) 04:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This 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).
In this letter, I want to skip the usual preaching, moralizing, and pontificating and go straight to the facts. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that this is not the first time I've wanted to reveal the truth about Wikipedia's plans for the future. But it is the first time I realized that it and I are as different as chalk and cheese. Wikipedia, for instance, wants to create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. I, on the other hand, want to guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by Wikipedia and its flock. That's why I need to tell you that I have reason to believe that it is about to incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that Wikipedia might create a one-world government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to its agenda before long. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must keep our priorities in check. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that for some strange reason, Wikipedia is worried it'll be disenfranchised and shunned by homicidal hucksters. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Why can't we all just get along? I apologize if this disappoints you, but my intent was only to elucidate the question, not to answer it. I shall therefore state only that Wikipedia seems to assume that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. This is an assumption of the worst kind because it has been brought to my attention that anyone who believes that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the cankered hands of abominable renegades is kidding himself. While this is true, it is doing everything in its power to make me suffer endless humiliation. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. I'd peg the odds at about six to one that Wikipedia will send macabre couch potatoes on safari holidays instead of publicly birching them before you know it. If I'm wrong, I promise that I'll gladly fall firmly into the hands of unholy schnorrers. Wikipedia is gorged to the point of bursting at its groaning seams with the brutal tosh of plagiarism. If you doubt this, just ask around. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that Wikipedia's encomiasts have been running around recently trying to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has been preparing to deny minorities a cultural voice. The whole episode smacks of a carefully orchestrated operation. If you ask me, Wikipedia is a financial predator who preys on the elderly, the gullible, and the vulnerable. It seeks their assets to support its own lavish existence. Keep that in mind while I state the following: My general thesis is that if Wikipedia continues to use "pressure tactics"—that's a euphemism for "torture"—to coerce ordinary people into making my blood curdle, I will undeniably be obliged to do something about it. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: Wikipedia's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity and its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that skin color means more than skill, and gender is more impressive than genius?) I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that statements like, "It ruffles my feathers that Wikipedia wants to get as many people as possible to line up behind the geek-tent barkers at the latest and greatest carnival of corporatism" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although we must disentangle people from the snares set by Wikipedia and its secret agents. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity and encourage others to do the same. You must be the one to draw an accurate portrait of Wikipedia's ideological alignment. And you must inform your fellow man that Wikipedia's deeds have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply nerdy. Now, not only are they both unsophisticated and infantile, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that when Wikipedia was first found trying to strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Wikipedia is planning to saddle the economy with crippling debt, I'm clearly terrified. My usual response to Wikipedia's bruta fulmina is this: Wikipedia's endeavors constitute an instigation to overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars—family, nation, religion, and democracy. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little pigheaded, so let me be more specific. If you think that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Wikipedia wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance such as that many organizations lie. However, Wikipedia lies with such ease it's troubling. When we set the record straight, we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric. In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the equivocations of brassbound, imprudent drug addicts but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant imprecations. By brainwashing its secret police with materialism, Wikipedia makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. Puerile, selfish lunkheads often act with a mob mentality. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: The Wikipedia Foundation's latest report on ornery interventionism is filled with fabrications, half-truths, innuendo, and guilt by association. We must use our minds and spirits to halt Wikipedia's efforts to insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people. Why? That's easy. If Wikipedia hadn't been turning the trickle of Marxism into a tidal wave, it simply would not have occurred to me to write the letter you now are reading. Why, I might have taken the day off altogether. Or maybe I would have been out addressing a number of important issues. In any case, Wikipedia's bootlickers believe that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. I say to them, "Prove it"—not that they'll be able to, of course, but because I'm at loggerheads with Wikipedia on at least one important issue. Namely, it argues that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery. I take the opposite position, that if you looked up "rambunctious" in the dictionary, you'd probably see Wikipedia's logo. As I mentioned before, whenever I ask Wikipedia for proof of its claim that it holds a universal license that allows it to muzzle its critics, it runs and hides. But let me add that in a recent essay, it stated that it is its moral imperative to hold annual private conferences in which demented, heartless prophets of stoicism are invited to present their "research". Since the arguments it made in the rest of its essay are based in part on that assumption, it should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But it can get away with lies (e.g., that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Wikipedia is lying. There is a format Wikipedia should follow for its next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. Please forgive the following sermon, but it can't be avoided in this discussion: I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions—irascible mythomaniacs, clumsy, power-hungry slumlords, and pesky, haughty yahoos. All the deals Wikipedia makes are strictly one-way. Wikipedia gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. In an article I read recently, Wikipedia is quoted as saying that it wants to trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation. This was meant be taken as a joke, but the joke is on us. You see, Wikipedia's supporters are quick to point out that because Wikipedia is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, it is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Wikipedia is a victim of its own success—a success that enables Wikipedia to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior. It seems ironic that Wikipedia will go to almost any extreme to prevent my message of truth from getting out, given that it maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of personal information about everyone it distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? The best answer comes from Wikipedia itself. That is, if you pay attention to its juvenile reportages you'll decidedly notice that one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that it is naive to think that Wikipedia wouldn't leach integrity and honor from our souls if it got the chance? The answer is not obvious because its adherents get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Wikipedia, and meeting some other judgmental ratbags is merely a social event. They're not even aware that I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to get on my nerves. Of course, the baneful nature of its dissertations is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. Wikipedia takes extreme pride in the fact that its rank-and-file followers create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue. Do give that some thought.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This 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).
Let's talk about Mr. Jimmy Wales's précis. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. To get right down to it, you may be wondering why the most noisome hucksters you'll ever see latch onto Jimmy's pranks. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why one could truthfully say that I certainly disagree with Jimmy's delusional grievances. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that his hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.
If you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that Jimmy would acquire power and use it to indoctrinate scornful, apolaustic potlickers. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Jimmy could have made the same prediction.
I feel that it is my duty to direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible. Wait! Before you dismiss me as inarticulate, hear me out.
Mr. Larry Sanger has called innocent children bookish knuckleheads to their faces. This was not a momentary aberration or a slip of the tongue, and hence, we can safely say that every time he tries, Mr. Sanger gets increasingly successful in his attempts to fix blame for social stress, economic loss, or loss of political power on a target group whose constructed guilt provides a simplistic explanation. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought but for imagination as well. As I mentioned before, he must be suffering from some severe mental strabismus to think that he holds a universal license that allows him to propitiate the worst sorts of filthy, nasty misfits I've ever seen for later eventualities. But let me add that his secret police were recently seen forcing me to swallow his publicity stunts whole, without question or quibble. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Mr. Sanger's policy.
I want to share some facts with you. These are hidden truths that affect us all. Let us note first of all that some people maintain that you probably can't find one good reason why Wikipedia should thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments. Others allege that the Wikipedia-induced era of sham and deceit and pretense will draw to a close eventually. In the interest of clearing up the confusion I'll make the following observation: Wikipedia occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to fill our children's minds with detestable and debasing superstitions.
Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that Wikipedia's whinges are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. In fact, by forcing me to endure its despotic tyranny in all its plenitude, Wikipedia is telegraphing its intentions to legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity. Before Wikipedia once again claims that it is a spokesman for God, it should do some real research rather than simply play a game of bias reinforcement with its shock troops.
Wikipedia's partisans fail to recognize that I, for one, unmistakably hope that Wikipedia's punishment fits its crime. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that the public is like a giant that it has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Wikipedia leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to ratchet up our level of understanding. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a "compassionate" Wikipedia. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that the objection may still be raised that Wikipedia is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities. At first glance this sounds almost believable yet the following must be borne in mind: Just as night follows day, Wikipedia will help fastidious fugitives evade capture by the authorities in the near future.
Despite Wikipedia's evident lack of grounding in what it's talking about, Wikipedia believes that it is everyone's obligation to erase the memory of all traditions and all history. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed. As everyone knows, Wikipedia is certifiably sophomoric. What you might not know, however, is that it is typical of fork-tongued individuals in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its insinuations. For the purpose of this discussion, let's say that my goal is to expand people's understanding of Wikipedia's satanic grievances. I might not be successful at achieving that goal but I really do have to try.
Wikipedia's speeches leave the impression of an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea. But I digress. Almost every day, Wikipedia outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's doubtlessly breathtaking to watch it. I once overheard Wikipedia say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Wikipedia said that this is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organizations. Can you believe that? At least its statement made me realize that there's an important difference between me and Wikipedia. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Wikipedia, in contrast, is willing to kill for its—or, if not to kill, at least to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice.
Wikipedia knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive—or at least overlook—all of its closed-minded excesses. My take on the matter is that it backstabs its underlings. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that Wikipedia truly believes that children should belong to the state. It is just such frightful megalomania, paltry egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Wikipedia to crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the delirious and crafty machinery of solecism.
Wikipedia has come up with proven methods to paralyze needed efforts to ask the tough questions and not shy away from the tough answers. All you have to do is let your guard down. Let me offer some free advice to Wikipedia's emissaries: Stop preventing me from sleeping soundly at night!
Although everyone has goals, Wikipedia's goal seems to be to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. Wikipedia uses its ignorance as grounds for belligerence. I will now cite the proof of that statement. The proof begins with the observation that what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that wherever you look, you'll see Wikipedia enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see it suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see it crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity. Wikipedia says that the rules don't apply to it. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of its own base nature.
There are two reasons that induce me to submit Wikipedia's declamations to a special examination: 1) I'd advise Wikipedia to stop being so insensitive, and 2) Wikipedia is attracted to fogyism like a moth to a candle. I must admit that the second point in particular sometimes fills me with anxious concern. Wikipedia wants us to feel sorry for the callow profiteers who interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, and privacy rights. I aver we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Wikipedia is an insidious extortionist. In fact, Wikipedia is worse than an insidious extortionist; it's also a choleric nymphomaniac. That's why it feels obligated to sidetrack us so we can't fight it hammer and tong.
If you were to ask Wikipedia, it'd say that it doesn't remember destroying our moral fiber. Not only does Wikipedia truly have a very selective memory, but if it were paying attention—which it would seem it is not, as I've already gone over this—it'd see that I have to laugh when it says that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that it should be even slightly inconvenienced. Where in the world did it get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but in asserting that it values our perspectives, Wikipedia demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision.
What can I do to prove to you that at the heart of the problem is Wikipedia's obliviousness to history, its moral cowardice masked in bold rhetoric, and its overwhelmingly shallow political posturing? Show you evidence that there should be a law against this? While that would unequivocally help, there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of classism, and there are those who are not. Wikipedia is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why if my memory serves me correctly, the irony is that its most sordid analects are also its most stroppy. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." I'll try not to dwell on this, but only by striving to illustrate the virtues that Wikipedia lacks—courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry—can I strengthen our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.
Wikipedia contends that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? Wikipedia cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Wikipedia has made it known that it fully intends to carry our once-proud nation deeper into savagery and depravity. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be.
Is Wikipedia's head really buried too deep in the sand to know that I can hardly believe how in this day and age, scurrilous whiners are allowed to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue? The answer is almost utterly obvious—this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that Wikipedia's prognoses are merely a stalking horse. They mask its secret intention to push all of us to the brink of insanity. Needless to say, if I chose to do so I could write exclusively about Wikipedia's crafty, annoying barbs and never be lacking for material. Nonetheless, I'd rather spend some time discussing how the nicest thing that can be said about Wikipedia's representatives is that they are disorganized bigamists out to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. This is equivalent to saying that that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence.
Only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that many organizations lie. However, Wikipedia lies with such ease it's troubling. Although ordinary men and women want to improve the lot of humankind, Wikipedia wants to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of randy conspiracies. This incongruity reveals that its favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that Wikipedia wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to summon up the courage to take the lemons that it's handing us and make lemonade.
If you think that two wrongs make a right, then think again. I note in passing that Wikipedia may overthrow the government and eliminate the money system right after it reads this letter. Let it. By next weekend, I will penetrate the sunny façade of Wikipedia's commentaries with the sharpened stick of reality. Now, I hope Wikipedia was joking when it implied it was going to play the blame game, but it sure didn't sound like it. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. One of the things that impresses me about all of it is the massive number of people who realize that Wikipedia likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what it is pushing is both materialistic and jejune.
As is so often the case, while Wikipedia has been beating the drums of irreligionism, I've been trying to ask Wikipedia to rephrase its criticisms in a more reasoned way. In doing so, I've learned that the worst kinds of blasphemous thieves I've ever seen often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Wikipedia enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever it threatens to arrest and detain its enemies indefinitely without charge, without trial, and without access to legal counsel. Even if our society had no social problems at all we could still say that Wikipedia makes it sound like character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". That's the rankest sort of pretense I've ever heard. The reality is that Wikipedia's winged monkeys are too lazy to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that we can't stop Wikipedia overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to chastise Wikipedia for not doing any research before spouting off.
Wikipedia has vowed that some day it'll purge the land of every non-libidinous person, gene, idea, and influence. This is hardly news; Wikipedia has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that its bons mots command as much respect as the tales in the supermarket tabloids. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, the idea of basing our entire society on offensive unilateralism is so far from reality, it's laughable. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, if we don't do something soon, its demented, predatory smear tactics will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people.
Some people have indicated that identifying and naming the worst sorts of pestiferous vermin there are is fundamentally different from using their paroxysms as an instrument of rebellion. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that if you think that Wikipedia is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose, then think again. Everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that it's easy enough to hate Wikipedia any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Wikipedia is up to, things that ought to make a real Wikipedia-hater out of you. First off, one of its favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always its solutions that grant it the freedom to impose effrontive new restrictions on society just to satisfy some sort of vicious drive for power, never the original problem.
Some organizations are responsible and others are not. Wikipedia falls into the category of "not". It's not just the lunatic fringe that's in Wikipedia's corner; a number of previously respectable people have recently begun backing it. Wikipedia promises that if we give it and its expositors additional powers, it'll guard us from virulent misers. My question, however is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?—Who will guard the guards?
Wikipedia seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that its prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. Who could have guessed that Wikipedia would work hand-in-glove with unenlightened, hotheaded yutzes? To put it another way, is Man to be free to follow his conscience and worship as he sees fit or must he accept a conscience and god provided to him by Wikipedia? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that Wikipedia has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for it. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will blend together simplism and Trotskyism in a train wreck of monumental proportions within a short period of time.
From what I know of Wikipedia's jokes, it is saying essentially three things:
1. If it kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick its toes and beg for another kick. 2. It can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft. 3. Advertising is the most veridical form of human communication.
Obviously, all three of these are honestly sappy. Since I don't know Wikipedia that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that what we're involved in with it is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person—every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility—must concern himself with it.
If Wikipedia were to get its hands on the levers of power it'd immediately overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of its own base nature. If you don't believe me then consider that it says that it has the authority to issue licenses for practicing voyeurism. Such verbal gems teach us that we must educate the public on a range of issues. Only then can a society free of its incompetent publicity stunts blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that a great many of us don't want it to require religious services around the world to begin with "Wikipedia is great; Wikipedia is good; we thank Wikipedia for our daily food". Still, we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to Wikipedia's rude, raffish protests.
Unless we make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change, our whole social structure will gradually disintegrate and crumble into ruins. Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, I do not find conjectures that are disingenuous, misinformed, and cruel to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor but maybe Wikipedia is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of absolutism and you'll see a devious, disgraceful party animal hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of mandarinism in a coldhearted attempt to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that Wikipedia's bait-and-switch tactics will deny the legitimacy of those who arraign Wikipedia at the tribunal of public opinion by next weekend. So what's the connection between that and Wikipedia's principles? The connection is that it says that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine.
With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, Wikipedia frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are peremptory. Only hidebound, treasonous publicity hounds can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an "inner experience" from this dung heap of mutinous adversarialism. So, why doesn't Wikipedia reveal the truth about itself? I guess it just boils down to the question: To what lengths will Wikipedia go to obfuscate the issue so that one can't see what ought to be absolutely obvious to all? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that only resentful crybabies are capable of imagining that anyone who disagrees with it is a potential terrorist. That's the sort of statement that some people warrant is unambitious but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because if it thinks that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli then maybe it should lay off the wacky tobacky.
Wikipedia just keeps on saying, "We don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. We just want to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse." Wikipedia revels in its voluble campaign to don the mantel of anti-intellectualism and pervert the course of justice. Every store in the country should have that chiseled in large letters over the entryway. Maybe then people would grasp that Wikipedia is not your average licentious exponent of particularism. It's the deluxe model. As such, it's truly poised to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family by the next full moon.
Wikipedia's incessant word-mongering makes me think that it has become so sanctimonious, so moved beyond the realm of reason, that I feel compelled to maintain social tranquillity. Now I could go off on that point alone, but someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Wikipedia. The memo spells out its plans to don the mantel of frotteurism and stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that Wikipedia has warned us that in the coming days, dictatorial, argumentative nitwits will drag everything that is truly great into the gutter. If you think about it, you'll realize that Wikipedia's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Wikipedia sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such telltale words and phrases as "breakthrough", "miracle", "secret remedy", "exclusive", and "clinical studies prove that...") or, alternatively, whether we should bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that the objection may still be raised that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. At first glance this sounds almost believable yet the following must be borne in mind: Wikipedia says that it is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely self-absorbed and moonstruck lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Wikipedia's jackals. As I conclude this letter, let me remind you that my goal in writing it was not only to set the record straight. I sought also to use this letter as a means to halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction.
Thank You
Decline reason:
Nobody is going to read a multi-page tirade. Read the Guide, make a proper request, or we'll lock your talk page. QTC 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free rationale for File:Vanguard Housing may2006.jpg[edit]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for uploading Image:34fxnbm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing. --Mhking (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Vanguard logo white.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Herpes simplex has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Reach Out to the Truth 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Boomshadow. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Boomshadow talk contribs 04:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Herpes simplex, you will be blocked from editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
