User talk:Darkproxy

get the fuck off my page please

Can I also suggest that you take a look over Wikipedia:Civility before editing any further? It details one of the basic expectations of people editing Wikipedia, namely that they speak civilly to one another even when in disagreement over things like article content. There are several violations on this page alone; I humbly suggest you act with a little more care going forward in order to be able to have a productive experience with this site. Euchrid (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure although maybe you people shouldn't be accusing me of libel when the facts stand against another person. tell me what source would you rather beleive the DOL with several indenpendant study groups or unifem with no study groups and no legit sources that aren't linked directly to ms magazine's blog? I'll be civil so long as you people apologize for calling me a liarDarkproxy (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has accused you of being libellous that I've seen, nor have they called you a liar. The reason that you were cautioned about your behaviour on the Anita Sarkeesian talkpage is that you were using the space, not to propose improvements to the page, but to criticise the person that it's about. Wikipedia takes this very seriously because the whole site can be found responsible for things that editors like you and I say, even if it's not in article space. For this reason, biographies of living people are taken very seriously, and come under the most scrutiny of any Wikipedia articles. Here is the appropriate policy, it's vital that you read it if you want to edit articles about living people.

With regard to the Anita Sarkeesian article, if there are specific additions that you want to make to it, please suggest those on the talkpage. "She's a liar" is insufficient, you need to find a notable source whose content you want to add. This policy details how we determine what sources are notable.

At the end of the day, though, whatever you believe, Wikipedia is going to describe the positions and opinions of a lot of people you disagree with. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorses those points of view, simply that they are notable people whose statements and actions are worth documenting here. At least until you get a bit of experience, I strongly recommend you stick to uncontroversial topics, or BLPs of people whom you agree with.Euchrid (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must clearly be blind take a second look at the very top of this page and you'll see a link to libel on it. Its even in t≈he very first sentence, please inform me if that was too complex for you to understand? hell I qoute it for you since this is obviously to complex. Also answer the question I asked stop writing on my talk page.

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Anita Sarkeesian, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.

that shut you up

Well it seems qouting you people on acusing me of libel really shut your sorry mouths good and tight

October 2012 <slander redacted>

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at The Female Man, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hows it deflamatory if I read the book and actually saw that very statement in the book? does this site do anything logical or correctly? Much less anything that doesn't lick feminism hate mongering ass? There are better easier ways to get pussy you know.Darkproxy (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

???? Evil and stupid people in novels say evil and stupid things; that does not mean that the book or the author advocates those things. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]