User talk:CynicalPatriot

Frank donner

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Frank donner, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/donner.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided was sent to me by another person and I assumed it was there own paraphrasing. I did not give the material a hard read, as I had just used Frank Donner as a reference in other work of mine. In this busy world, I just wanted to make sure that the man was remembered for his work. It seemed unfair to punish him to obscurity just for dying before the invention of Wikipedia. In this hectice world, It was important enough for me to make sure he got an entry, but not important enough for me to do an extentive review due to time constraints. I thought that others might contribute to improving the listing once it was established. Mia culpa.

Speedy deletion nomination of Frank donner

A tag has been placed on Frank donner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided was sent to me by another person and I assumed it was there own paraphrasing. I did not give the material a hard read, as I had just used Frank Donner as a reference in other work of mine. In this busy world, I just wanted to make sure that the man was remembered for his work. It seemed unfair to punish him to obscurity just for dying before the invention of Wikipedia. In this hectice world, It was important enough for me to make sure he got an entry, but not important enough for me to do an extentive review due to time constraints. I thought that others might contribute to improving the listing once it was established. Mia culpa.

welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CynicalPatriot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD nomination of Sovereign Citizens

This article has been nominated for deletion. Your comments on the matter are welcome. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign Citizens. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er...

You do realize that Wikipedia is an international project, right? Not just an American one? DS (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Um

I thought the truth was the truth.

I did not realize that the truth change based on whether I was an American or something else? What Country do I have to say I am from to be anointed as one that tells the truth?

Here is an article I wrote with the intent to improve our government through dissent. [1] Was that sufficiently critical of the USA enough to earn me the International mantel of "truth teller"?

I reject your entire position

I am a critical thinker, not an international progressive history revisionist, as apparently control Wikipedia.

You straighten out your Government's Propaganda Machine and I will work on attacking any propaganda machines I find, like Wikipedia.

Don Mashak The Cynical Patriot CynicalPatriot (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Tea Party protests, 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Tea Party protests, 2009. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Tea Party protests, 2009. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you.

Please do not use talk pages such as Tea Party protests, 2009 for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.

I am specifically referring to these diffs: [2] [3] [4] [5]

The following quotes were especially ridiculous:

"Initially the Republican Party attempt to slip some Republican Trojan horse tea party groups in in an attempt to Usurp the Movement. But they were discovered."

"Dont read the estimates, view the pictures yourself. (The TEA Party Movement does not tell you how to think, we ask you to "think critically" for yourselves.)"

"Obama's Educated Elitist thugs have wrongfully tried to paint the TEA PArty Movement as a rebellion by uneducated commoners against the superior Obama educated elite class."

"And now, my fellow American's, I ask you to ask yourselves, "Did your government and the major media lie to you?" And if so, for what purpose? CynicalPatriot (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)"

Remember, this is an encyclopedia. Don't write to the audience in the second person. And please don't sign article pages.

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make believe monster.... You cannot be serious about neutrality. Read that article. That article is not neutral... It is painted from Progressive Historical Revisionist persceptitive

Did you even Read Bloombergs articles TEA PArty Teens... He made that case. I cannot make up this stuff. You have no neutralilty if you say that my reference to his perspective of what the TEA Party was about about educated vs uneducated class warfare, then lets just give up this sham propaganda to the rest of the world the WIkipedia is neutral.

Correct the article to make it reflect what truly happened. I was there. I participated. What qualifies you to define what the TEA PArty was better than myself?

The article as it currently stands it purely propaganda to demonize and discredit the TEA PArty movement.

Is that your intent?

CynicalPatriot (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "Tea Party Teens" article, and I see some of what you're trying to get at. I'm definitely not saying you're wrong. But remember that on wikipedia you can't make up your own analysis, you need to attribute it to someone.

For example...

GOOD: New York Times columnist David Brooks has described the Tea Party Movement as embodying a backlash against "every single idea associated with the educated class."^[1]

BAD: The Tea Party Movement is a backlash against the educated class.

BAD: Obama's Educated Elitist thugs have wrongfully tried to paint the TEA PArty Movement as a rebellion by uneducated commoners against the superior Obama educated elite class.

So you can't make your own analysis, but you can cite other people's analysis. (Assuming it's notable.) Hope this helps!

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the article as it currently stands contains propaganda, then by all means, replace the misinformation with neutral, verifiable truth. Just make sure you're following Wikipedia's guidelines, and we'll be glad to see a propaganda-ridden article turned into something that accurately represents the truth. Minetruly (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth vs. Verifiability

Your statement, "I was there. I participated. What qualifies you to define what the TEA PArty was better than myself," indicates you don't understand the problem we have with vandalism. You see, some people deliberately edit Wikipedia articles so they contain lies and misinformation. This is why all statements must be backed by reliable sources.

YOU know that you are giving a truthful first-hand account. However, WE do not know this. Wikipedia has always been plagued by vandals who edit Wikipedia so it contains misinformation. For example, I could go to the Tea Party protests article and say that a large group of Tea Party protesters raped five teenaged girls to death. I could do it right now. Are you saying that all I need to do to convince the other editors to preserve my lie is to say, "I was there. I participated. If you ignore me, you're ignoring the truth?" How do you propose the editors distinguish the truth-tellers like you from the liars like me? Minetruly (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake News Mainstream media and ProgDog College Professors are not credible, neutral unabiased sources nor are folks on the Soros payroll. Its like living under Hitler and the NAZIs and being required to cite a NAZI/Hitler authorized source to prove your criticism of Hitler and the NAZIs.

At some point, there will be another series of Nuremburg Trials. NAZI Propaganda Minister Goebbels committed suicide to avoid facing the music.

You folks purposely censoring and promoting propaganda to warp the minds of the masses will not be afforded the opportunity to commit suicide before you face the music at the next round of Nuremburg style trials for crimes against humanity.

Screw this whole idea that only educated elites can publish the truth.... That sounds a lot like the establishment of truth by the Kings and Church under the Divine Right of Kings.... Some folks stormed the Bastille, guillotined royalty and revolted from Britain over crap thinking like that.

October 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-u1}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While editors are given some freedom per Wikipedia's user page guidelines as to the type of information they can add to their user pages, a user pagey is not really intended to be personal website or a soapbox for attempting to right great wrongs. A lot of what is on your user page does not seem to comply with the user page guidelines, so I suggest you trim it down a bit. Otherwise, the page could be nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse edit

You seem to have reverted the WP:Teahouse to a version of the page from 2015. As this is obviously an error, I have reverted your change. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ([User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]]: I presume the truth is the truth worldwide. I have studied the Enlightenment extensively. The Men of Letters reduced Natural Law to writing not Progressivism. Show me a mention of Progressivism during the Enlightenment 1650-1800 by the Men of Letters. Locke? Rosseau? Hobbes? No, this is another attempted PRogDog rewrite of history. The Enlightenment produced Natural Law and Natural Rights which displaced Divine Right of Kings with a Paradigm shift. Social Darwinism (1870s), after Darwin's Origin of species morphed into Progressivism in America and the NAZIs in Germany... You know, Eugencis, etc.

Please do tell me which of the Men of Letters talks about Progressivism.

^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05brooks.html

[1] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05brooks.html

[1]