User talk:Sceptik

August 2008

Henry Benedict Stuart

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Henry Benedict Stuart 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. Thanks. Rror (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your most recent posting on the discussion page of this article. I am now afraid I am going to have to report you for using consistently abusive language personally directed to me. You called me "diseased". I would rather engage constructively on the arguments and not attacks at a personal level. I suspect you may be a Catholic and have strong feelings on the issue. I have never sought to attack the Catholic church or clergyman per se, and you may want to note that personally I am actually a Roman Catholic by birth. Nor am I seeking to show hypocrisy (although there is doubtless loads of it) of clergymen. I am simply trying to make sure that the truth is reflected as far as possible - that may cause discomfort but we have to live with that. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You may now want to note that I have posted a complaint on the Administrator's noticeboard asking them to investigate what I see as an unprovoked homophobic attack. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You might wish to change your editing associates on the Wikipedia, for it seems you've made an alliance with sexually-motivated editors who have nothing else to add to articles, but put anti-"mainstream", revisionist spin on historical possibilities/plausibilities/probabilities and totally bloat minor, unsubstantiated claims of sexual behaviour or inclinations, beyond reason. So please, if you are serious about being taken at your word, broaden your edits to contribute on other than POV-pushing topics and avoid those such as User:Haiduc and his crowd. To present to you a personal statement about myself, in all fairness to your own willingness to reveal about yourself: I only look for fairness and conventional truth to be presented about religious and political figures in general. I'm not personally interested or invested in Henry Stuart or his religion; I simply have an insight from a heavy study in the Stuarts and the RCC. There are several claims which may be made about that dynasty and that Church, but what you are aiming at has nothing to do with them. It is almost as if some people who look at the data about historical topics, do not really have an affinity for the information and the true implications or importance of the details, nor the greater picture. I consider it to be extremely irresponsible to do what you have been doing and will continue to do. It is furthermore a problem of enabling this, that any frustration I show towards you, makes it seem that what you're doing is nothing and that I really have nothing legitimate to say. You may feel free to exploit this prejudice and continue your propagandisation about sexuality in the historical realm. Have a great time! Who's to take devil's advocate apologetics for the cause of truth seriously? User:CarlosPn clearly desires to quietly disown Henry Stuart from the true ranks of Catholicism, because the prospect of scandal hurts his confidence or self-perception, based upon your favoured accusations. To CarlosPn, it is better to turn the other cheek when it comes to these things, maybe go out of his way to seem agreeable for the old idea that "cut the root to save the tree" will remedy your blatant misappropriation of the media, such as Wikipedia or otherwise, as free for hate-mongering, propaganda-dispensing software. That's called cybersquatting. I've already pointed out on Henry Stuart's talkpage, your other violations of Wikipedia policy, but because of the controversial sensitivity of this sexuality topic, the Wikipedia administration will go to great lengths to quiet legitimate complaint at your outrageousness. It is the politically correct thing to do. Like I said, exploit the loopholes and blind eyes of Wikipedia. Run it into the ground. Who does it hurt? You've been hurt, you are convinced, by the Church and others unsympathetic to your issues. You may be a lapsed Catholic or have found Catholic support groups for your issue. The more you go about trying to "tell the REAL truth" about people such as Henry Stuart, or systematic problems about sexuality stereotypes, related to how really common it is, vis a vis, the conventional disavowal of your sexual orientation from the mainstream, the more you are engaging in pushing POV. Maybe you think that forcing the issue is the right thing, but it certainly is not the wisest approach. This coup d'medie or whatever, will only earn you more grief. I don't want the grief in your co-opting of legitimate, good faith projects such as free academia, to ruin it for others or myself, who may not expect your ownership of articles to serve your selfish purposes. Others will resent you for doing what you do, knowingly and this con-artist, charlatanry will simply destroy the credibiliy of anything you push for. Be the professional POV-pusher, or not. Get away with it because you can, or not. It's your soul (and body) to do with what you may and I will not be the one around on Judgment Day. Maybe you do not believe in this reciprocal freedom for others, even though you demand that others not place a "window into men's souls" or express criticism over your actions which negatively affect others. Like I said, it's your problem and like Pontius Pilate, I wash my hands of this issue. Good luck in making choices, because you have Free Will to do goodness or sin. Thanks for trying to "snipe" me out of the picture. It's worked and now you may defecate all over Henry Stuart, to displace your self-esteem problems, trying to normalise it through pretending everybody else is deviant as well, thus taking the heat off. You are still trying to make it seem that the ones most strident in condemnation of perversion, are closet perverts. You are a self-opinionated hypocrite. Don't worry. I'm not interested in coming by you again. You're just a "tattle-tale" if it's too hard for you to admit it. 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.' When did you forget that axiom? That's all I have to say. Sceptik (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you 31 hours for this blatant personal attack. Please see Wikipedia's policy about personal attacks if you have any questions. If you promise never to do anything like this again, I will unblock you straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making a blatant personal attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not requesting a removal of the block. Thanks for the wonderful "benefit of the doubt" offer. Sceptik (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant it though and still do. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll let pass what you said to Contaldo80, above, You are a self-opinionated hypocrite. Doesn't matter if you're "right" or "wrong," please comment on content and sources, not on editors. If you carry on making personal attacks after the block is done, the next block will be longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, there is nothing more to talk about with him. Even if he writes another faux self-composed, condescending and insolent reply, with a "shit-eating grin" about my situation and the fact that he is now free to do what he wants, sans-scrutiny from the Wikipedia Administration, as the "injured party" behind that computer screen of his, I'm not going to communicate with him ever again. I really don't take this personal. If you don't like my matter-of-fact statements about the treachery displayed by others, but would like to prosecute my own impropriety of "political correctness", I do not care. You basically revealed that what bothered you the most, is the criticism of inappropriate behaviour. That comment I made to him, therefore now applies to you. This is not emotional for me, but you did in fact, "walk in" to that situation, not wanting to deal with the drama and think it will just go away, apparently taking this personally. You were already thinking that the disciplinary function of a block might have been too much. Well, isn't that the truth? I still don't request a lift of the block. If you don't like my attitude, you can go ahead and make it an indefinite block. There's really no difference and I have nothing to lose, with an Administration that does not take its own responsibilities seriously enough. I have read the guidelines and it is rare that they are enforced for all parties in an editorial dispute. No harm done, no feelings hurt. Well now, who cares about Wikipedia anyways? Sceptik (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks aren't allowed. If you do it again, the next block will be much longer. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New South Wales

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to New South Wales, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Holy Roman Empire. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Nazi references are a big no. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Your "heil hitler" remark was completely out of line, especially given your recent block last week for personal attacks. You were warned, and you continued your attacks, therefore you are blocked for two weeks. If you even think of toeing the line again, the next block will be permanent.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I randomly came across this block on AN/I. I'm not sure this lengthy block is appropriate. For example, if he said something such as "Long live, Chairman Mao!" or Vive le Québec libre, others probably wouldn't take it as an offense or at least not incurred this long block just for saying "heil Hitler". For parallel, many users, such as User:Blueshirts, have blatant political statements on their userspace promoting brutal dictators such as Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek. This seems a bit of a double-standard.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up, he was blocked only weeks ago for the same thing. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The block was not for supporting Hitler. The block was for using the term heil heitler against another editor, in a way that supports incivility and was essentially meant as a personal attack, merely a week after being blocked for the same thing. Take a look at the context of his sentence and it will be perfectly clear why he was blocked. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)