User talk:Haphaestus123

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Far-left politics, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Cease and desist your blatantly disruptive editing. Level 1 Warning. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Far-right politics. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Cease and desist your blatantly disruptive editing. Level 2 Warning. -- Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Far-right politics. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. -- Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You Were Warned

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryonmorrigan (talk • contribs) 03:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice style, you cant develop a rational arguement so you block my ability to post on the discussion thread, thats very mature!.....You asked for references I gave you over 20, including PHD"S which you asked for. Including noted journalists, historians, political scientists etc etc etc.....plenty of them which leave your own credentials begging! Entire books, not too mention magazine articles and speeches have been written on the topic, all of which you choose to ignore. A dozen different books, several magazine articles are cited.

Instead of a rational discussion you have choosen to abuse your authority, and are creating "the world according to byron morrigan" instead of an online encyclopedia.....good luck with that!

You are entitled to your opinion, but your not entitled to your own set of facts!

Wow. Just wow. You really are too much. You can't even type in proper English, but you think you know more than every reputable historian on the planet? And no, all you did was cut and paste the reference list from a paper written by some guy who is neither "reputable," nor a "historian." You have no idea what you are talking about, but it's clear that no amount of rational discussion will dissuade you from your revisionist, fringe theories. You want to read real academic discussion on the subject, from reputable historians? Try these on for size: [1], [2], and [3]. Of course, these were written by some of the most reputable historians on the subject of fascism and WW2, but of course...those can't compete with some fringe wackos you dredged up in a Google search. There's a reason that the pages for subjects like Fascism and Nazism have a great deal of citations, and it's not because of Bryon Morrigan and his alleged bias. It's because the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia adhere to the RULES, and know how to properly cite academic works. You can do neither, and from your "command" of the English language, I'm guessing you barely graduated high-school. Furthermore, I did not "abuse my authority," as I have none. I gave you 3 warnings, which anyone can do, and when you did not cease and desist, I reported you to an administrator, who DID have the authority to look at the evidence and see that you were clearly violating the rules. Now stop being so immature and whining. Take responsibility for your own actions, and learn how to properly use Wikipedia, or I'm sure you'll find yourself blocked again and again. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi-Socialism1 By Friedrich August von Hayek Spring 1933 Hoover Institution, F. A. Hayek Papers, Box/Folder 105 : 10. F. A. Hayek (1899 – 1991), Austrian by birth, British by naturalization. Economist and polymath. Gravitas mentor of the Austrian School of economics. Advocate of classical economic liberalism (i.e., free-entrepreneurism) and free-market capitalism. 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics. 1991 U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom. " Incomprehensible as the recent events in Germany must seem to anyone who has known that country chiefly in the democratic post- war years, any attempt fully to understand these developments must treat them as the culmination of tendencies which date back to a period long before the Great War. Nothing could be more superficial than to consider the forces which dominate the Germany of today as reactionary –in the sense that they want a return to the social and economic order of 1914. The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National “Socialism is a genuine socialist movement......."

well he has two phd's, several honarary degress, phd political science, phd economics, wiki describes him as "probably the most influential economist of modern times"...oh and did i mention the nobel prize

and i quote "National “Socialism is a genuine socialist movement" and fyi socialism is a left wing movement. HMMM...whats next your going to exclaim "well i will have a nobel prize soon"

now who is better judge of what Nazism is, a history phd or a world renown polymath, with phd's in economics and political science! Haphaestus123 (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2011 (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).

Haphaestus123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here.....at jeremy , only three times have i editted a page, and all in same 24 hours, and each time same page, it is the only time i have ever editted anything on wiki. I did not read the policy, and did not understand the editting procedure. I will limit my edit to discussion pages until I understand better the process of editting pages. I am sincerely not interested in "vandalising" something that I have used in my research on many occassions. I was not trying to be misleading by stating it is the only edit i have ever made. If you look at my editing logs you will see i have only ever (i think) made three eits all to same page, or two pages (far right and far left ) all in 24 hours. In any event I promise not to edit any pages and limit my contributions to discussion pages(which i didnt even know existed until after my first edit). I think my account is only a month or so old, and i have made very few edits. I have read the policy now and agree to abide by it. I will not edit any pages other then to add to discussions. Haphaestus123 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please have only one unblock request open at a time. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2011 (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.

I am not an admin; if I were I would have declined your last unblock request instead of commenting on it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 15:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. m.o.p 05:14, 7 November 2011 (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).

Haphaestus123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here....I apologize for editing a page, I didnt know we have to form a consensus, if you review my history you will see this is the first and only times i have editted a page. I will limit my posts to discussion pages until a consensus is reached. Please forgive my unfamiliarity with wikipedia system, i am still learning how to use and contribute to wikipedia. Haphaestus123 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is not just a question of editing an article without discussion on the talk page. Your talk page editing has been disruptive, contentious, and belligerent. Your sole purpose seems to be to impose a point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2011 (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.

Given the two edits immediately prior, this unblock request seems quite dishonest. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]