User talk:Dshsfca

=

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Liberalism 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. Thank you. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. JNW (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Talk:Logic. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Talk:Liberalism. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Bihco (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALL ARE MY CONTRIBUTIONS, WHICH I WISH REMOVED. WIKI'S EDITORS HAVE VANDALIZED MY CONTRIBUTIONS TO DISTORT AND DISCREDIT. Rather than argue on their terms, I want ALL my contributions REMOVED. It's my intellectual effort and work, and you paid me nothing but CORRUPTION of it. I want all my contributions REMOVED. Dshsfca (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)dshsfca[reply]

I have no idea who Fritzpoll or Bihco are, other than typical Wiki Referees without a clue, but i've made NO CONTRIBUTION TO LIBERALISM, regardless of their claims, and if I raised a DISCUSSION TOPIC that must be CENSORED, then WIKI's tactics justify my desire to sever all links, contributions, and associations.

I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE. I WANT ALL CONTRIBUTIONS OF MY INITIATIVE AND EFFORT -- MY WORK PRODUCT -- REMOVED. Dshsfca (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)dshsfca[reply]

August 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Queer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Irn (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess 20 footnotes are NOT independent? You just wipe away 20 books, supporting MY conclusion. But as A QUEER (I assume) you don't want the facts about queer paraphilia "exposed." Well Queers DO.

And clearly, the absurdity of "No point of view" is philosophically bankrupt. Your censorship of footnoted commentary is outrageous. You might as well delete the whole entry. It has less documentation than I did.

But your feelings are hurt. If you were academic, you'd be fired. Intellectual dishonesty may be queer, but I am not.