User talk:71.241.218.107

WP:Systemic bias is the only page at this domain that doesn't make me want to cry. Or, rather, it makes me want to cry less; I still get a lump in my throat when I reflect on how it appears that I'm the only editor who has read it.

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Operation Rescue (Kansas) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; 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. Thank you. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Rescue (Kansas)

Hi there. I have reverted your edit to Operation Rescue (Kansas) based on Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Self-identifying_terms. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the policy that Dawn bard linked to is wrong, the onus is on you to start a discussion to change it. Stop accusing people of being "right-wing" and "not understanding what consensus is". J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "right-wing" comment was related to something outside our exchange. But I'm sure that won't stop you from butting in and reverting my edits to that other article as well, just because you can get away with it.

You quite obviously don't understand what "consensus" means. It's an observation, not an accusation. Seriously, look it up.

And stop waving policy in my face.

Per http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus, a consensus is a "general agreement". The policy that Dawn bard linked to, and indeed all policies on the site, are a result of a general agreement of most editors on Wikipedia.

IAR ends exactly where another editor disagrees with you. If you decide you want to ignore all rules, you had better be prepared to explain yourself. Especially if your actions are in explicit opposition with an existing policy. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, simply put, is when opposing views are considered and every effort is made to fold them into any decisions that are made. You clearly don't understand this. You clearly equate consensus with democracy.

You clearly don't understand what IAR means, either. Your description renders it meaningless.

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page National-Anarchism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; 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. Thank you. Gpia7r (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page National-Anarchism. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. MuZemike 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted in one second, then less than a second. Well, at least two more neo-Nazis have been exposed.

Wage slavery

Wage slavery. Please do not remove sourced information that is stable in the article without discussion on the talk page. Your edit summary sounded like an opinion or original research as to the removal. skip sievert (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was perfectly "stable" before you and your fellow right-wing extremists expropriated it from its primary maintainer, which you did on ideological grounds. And now you're lacing it with right-wing apologetics for wage-slavery, much of it utterly nonsensical, such as that I removed. The summary explained the reasoning, which is perfectly sound. I didn't expect for a nanosecond that my edit would survive the deathgrip of the capitalist fundamentalists who now own the article, but perhaps someone higher up in the WP hierarchy, or with a better connection among the Randroid nomenklatura, will see my edit and agree with it and make it stick, in spite of you and your fellow Invisible Hand worshipers.

Suit yourself but you pretty much have things wrong as to what is going on. Also this might be a good reference point for you, and I do not mean it negatively Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. Wikipedia has pretty strict criteria and also things like this Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Name calling is not going to help things. If you have some ideas put them on the talk page for discussion. Removing reffed sourced sections of the article is not a good idea. It is an encyclopedia article... not a blog or forum. Editors are usually not considered notable and truth giving or information removal is not good, especially when a point by doing so is trying to be made, that is said to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... also not a good idea. skip sievert (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am under no obligation to grovel for permission of the owners before making edits. I am encouraged to be bold.

2. "Stability" is a ploy to intimidate would-be editors. An owner declares an article "stable," thus magically transforming would-be editors into would-be vandals who threaten "stability." It also means that the owner is perpetually assuming bad faith. Moreover, the owner, when enforcing the article lockdown and reverting unapproved edits, commits gross hypocrisy by disturbing the new state of stability.

2 is an extension of 1; a justification for why I need permission from you to edit. Of course, I could simply go back to any point in the article's history and declare stability, but I'm not in a position to intimidate you, because I don't spend my time forming alliances with my ideological comrades to help me run you off those articles that expose the horrors of my ideology.

September 2009

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 Capitalism, 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. Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of fact that capitalism is an economic system whereby one group (capitalists) exist by stealing the fruits of the labor of another group (workers). Capitalism is therefore an example of intraspecific kleptoparasitism. The redirect improved the encyclopedia by removing redundancy. Since you've elected to revert the improvement, it would appear that it is you who are not interested in making "constructive contributions to Wikipedia," and you who qualifies as a vandal.

Please stay away from my talk page - particularly if you are going to spout nonsense fringe theories about topics you obviously fail to have a solid grasp of. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only nonsense is your belief that economics is defined as the nonsense spouted by the apologists of capitalism. Note that your comrade, who polices your talk page for you, is an unrepentant advocate of sweatshops. I'll run intellectual circles around both of you on the subject of the economic feudalism you both espouse. As for your talk page, it is perfectly clear why you don't want my comments there: because they hit your ideology where it hurts. You allow all manner of disagreement on your page, unless it tears down your barbaric market fundamentalist religion, or your hypocrisy as an editor.

Please stay away from my talk page or find yourself blocked for harassment. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you address me, you are soliciting a response. Now, please stay the fuck off my talk page with your half-hearted threats. I see through them. If you intended to block me, I'd be blocked. Put up or shut up, you quivering sack of shit.

But since you're fond of one-way conversations, where only you get to speak (I sure hope you don't have kids), I'll repeat myself here: I am not a "wealth hater"; I want workers take home 100% of the wealth generated in this world, since that is the percentage they generate. The owners of land and capital generate nothing -- they merely extract a fee from the workers, which they are able to do because they hold titles to "private property" (either land, which they didn't produce; or capital, which was likewise produced by workers), which is backed up by the guns of the state. They are violent extortionists, just like the mafia. Having your eyes open to reality is not "fringe"; reality is simply driven into the shadows by the elite (modern-day feudalists, a.k.a. "capitalists") and their acolytes (slavish idolators, like yourself, who grovel and scrape before the personifications of the very capital you produced for them as a worker -- you really ought to be ashamed).

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Scjessey. 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. Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you've forgotten: you are Scjessey; defending yourself in the third person is somehow bizarre... like a conflict of interest between split personalities. Seek mental health counseling.

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Scjessey. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack? Show it to me, or stay the fuck off my page. You're lucky I haven't done you the same courtesy you've done me, and simply deleted your comments. And I'd have more reason to do so, since my comments on your page have been topical discussion, whereas yours on mine are merely blustering threats. Now piss off. If the next comment you leave here does not include evidence of these alleged "personal attacks," then all current and future comments from you will be deleted.

I've been watching this from a distance, and you (the unregistered editor) really need to tone this down. Back off, stop accusing Scjessey on his talk page. If you had a legitimate point you needed to bring to another editor's attention then the talk page is fine for that. However, you are defending a wildly inappropriate edit you made, by accusing other editors of things. He's seen your complaints already and it is clear he disagrees, so repeating them is not going to accomplish anything. He is spot-on that this edit you made[1] is completely inappropriate and borders on vandalism. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and yours is clearly that capitalism is a great evil in society. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to make political statements. Deleting the article on capitalism to make a WP:POINT about politics is not an acceptable activity. Wikidemon (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me: It is a matter of fact that capitalism is ... an example of intraspecific kleptoparasitism. The redirect improved the encyclopedia by removing redundancy.

You: Deleting the article on capitalism to make a WP:POINT about politics is not an acceptable activity.

Please read WP:AGF, and then fuck off with your unwelcome and accusatory interjections. Go defend hypocrisy elsewhere.

P.S. It is not only my opinion that capitalism is a great evil in society, it is a demonstrable fact. It would even be self-evident, if not for the dutiful obfuscation performed by the sycophants and propagandists of capitalism, who indoctrinate us from cradle to grave with the Newspeak that equates economic feudalism with "freedom" and "prosperity," and whatever other empty buzzwords they think will convince us to defend the very system that prevents the great majority of humanity from realizing those lofty ideals.

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Christian Communism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. «Zach Minster» (Petgraveyard) (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you.[2]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Investment theory of party competition has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; 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. Thank you. RaseaC (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fucking mad? It's entirely constructive, and I spent a good while doing it.

I came here to apologise for my mistake but I will instead warn you about your conduct towards other editors. By itself, I would have thought nothing of your response to my warning, I made a mistake and would probably have responded in the same way had the roles been reversed. However, in light of your comment to Petgraveyard, above, it is clear that you are not farmiliar with how we do things around here, so may I suggest reading WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQUETTE or, at the very least, sorting your act out?! RaseaC (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to bully me with passive-aggressive admonitions of "how we do things around here." Like you, I don't give a fuck, although I mean it a bit differently. My act is perfectly well-sorted, thanks.

Oh, and your wikify tag is absurd. That's what I spent a fucking hour doing!

Stop attacking people. Stop swearing at people. If that's what you're here for, go away. AGF does not apply in you're situation, as you show that your edits cannot be accepted as good faith. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 16:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inserting yourself where you're not welcome and your opinions are irrelevant. It's clear that you're not hoping to get me to stop swearing; you're hoping to goad me into swearing more, to add to the "evidence" that I'm a troublemaker. So allow me to make your hopes and dreams come true: Fuck you. I'm not "attacking" someone when I call them out for bullying me (which, incidentally, is what you're doing as well, with the passive-aggressive "seriously" in your summary, meant to instill fear of impending consequences). If you don't like what I say on my talk page, go away. There's no necessity for you to come here during the course of your editing activities. Stop looking for trouble. Go do something useful.

Your edits are the focus of a discussion at WP:ANI

Discussion of your edits has begun at WP:ANI. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course: if you challenge the systemic bias of WP, you get labeled a POV-pusher and must be purged. The only part that interests me is that your activity is devoted solely to purging me. Why don't you decloak and do it under your account name? Coward.

Ok, calling someone a coward is impolite, and does not in any way address any concerns raised. Please sign your posts, regardless of what other rules you choose to ignore, that's a minor thing and you cannot possibly have any objection to it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the fuck should I be polite to someone who's trying to get me blocked? The "concerns" raised are that I'm not sufficiently docile and won't simply go away and let the market fundamentalists run roughshod over the encyclopedia unchallenged. 12.72.73.42 didn't just drop from the sky; s/he is clearly familiar with me and wants to be rid of me for challenging her/his POV-pushing. Hence the noticeboard without logging in. And I do have an objection to signing, actually, which I've discussed before but can't seem to find and don't feel like rehashing. Maybe it was under another IP. But no matter, what's important is that you're wrong. I suggest you refrain from saying things like "cannot possibly." There are few absolutes in this world.

So I, or another admin, does not block you for your personal attacks and disruptive nature of you general tone, which is emphatically not consensus building in nature, nor likely to persuade anyone of the correctness of your suggested edits
Your insistence that you remain an IP and not even bother to sign your own posts is at odds with your personal attack of another editor for supposedly being a "coward" for not signing in
Another editors animus against you, or lack thereof, is no excuse for your behavior
Point taken regarding "cannot possibly" - I am reminded again that anything at all is possible, and to avoid absolutes

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I'm purged or not is entirely out of my control. Whoever pulls the trigger will of course lay it on me, but it will still have been their finger. Words have no causal power in and of themselves; they are merely used by causal actors as a pretext for their actions.
There's no contradiction. The cowardice is in cloaking for the sole purpose of whining to the nomenklatura; hiding the identity that I've clearly dealt with previously. I have no account to log out of, because I have no desire to become a "Wikipedian" and kiss ass to move up the hierarchy and become a Wikithug. I'm all for anonymity; although I should note that not only is 12.72.73.42 a coward, but s/he is also an idiot: I know more about her/him now than I would had s/he remained logged in -- unless s/he is using a proxy. I suspect s/he doesn't want her/his reputation to be tarnished by such pettiness -- which only goes to show that the noticeboard was frivolous (if it weren't, then it'd be something to stand by openly and confidently, and even something to be proud to have on one's record, if one considers purges a Good Thing, as 12.72.73.42 clearly does).
I don't need an "excuse" to be who I am. The "behavior" which is at issue is that I am bold enough to challenge hypocrisy and systemic bias. That simply will not do, obviously.
I wonder if you mean it, since you evidently haven't even taken your own Advice.

Refusing responsibility for your own actions and the responses they engender is akin to the wife-beater claiming it was all her fault - if she'd minded, he wouldn't have had to hit her. And of course words have power; that it is the power we grant them rather than innate power does not remove the power.
Not being a mind reader, or caring overmuch, I'll not speculate on the other editor's purpose.
No, the behavior is your lack of civility and failure to engage your fellow editors with anything remotely approaching common courtesy.
That advice I follow when others are rude to me, and I advise others to do the same, where practicable. When a complaint arrives at ANI the situation is somewhat different. I am indeed following my own advice; I ignore your rudeness to me, but I do not excuse your disruption of the project by your repeated rudeness to others.

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're an idiot. Throwing a punch is a causal act. The causal actor in the case of words is the recipient, not the speaker, and certainly not the words. Again, you're an idiot.
The purpose is clear: to not have the noticeboard connected with her/his account.
I'm under no obligation to kiss the asses of market fundamentalists and beg them if I can edit "their" articles to replace fantasy with reality. The fact that I'm the one being pigpiled here, instead of them, is quite telling.
Telling bullies who visit my talk page to fuck off is not disruptive to the project.

I have removed the copyrighted essay that you posted here. You cannot use this page to post copyrighted material.

Plenty of users have attempted to reason with you, so I'll just make it simple. Cease directing incivility and hostility towards other users or you will be blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you. Civility is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty. I'm under no obligation to censor my words on this page. Your threats only lessen your stature in my eyes. I'm utterly unimpressed by you.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Gamaliel (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even after your block you continue to insult people on this page, so I've increased your block and configured it to prevent you editing this page. If you wish to contest this block, you can email the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR "game"

You can't be blocked for edit warring on your talk page (with a few exceptions for removing block notices), so your assumption that other editors are "goading" you into breaking WP:3RR is unwarranted.

You can be blocked for other things - but you seem more than capable of doing them on your own, without me giving you pointers. In any event you've had plenty of good advice already.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've learned the hard way that cops lie, I'll have to assume you're here to trick me. As justification for this assumption, notice that Wikidemon got a member of his gang to pick up where he left off. Why do that, if 3rr doesn't apply to talk pages?

Just a wild stab in the dark, but because you're posting copyrighted material - an act that threatens the freedom of this project? Just a wild-ass guess, mind, what would this "cop" know?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An anarchist who supports "intellectual property." Amazing.

A syndicalist who works with other members of a community, instead of pissing in the communal trough. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.