User talk:Skantada

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your hateful attack is impotent

The above is a warning because your commentary at Talk:Islamist terrorism were not directed towards improving the article, but were instead attacking User:Netscott and his contributions. I performed a Microsoft Word spelling and grammar check on the article and that is all that was changed. However, your comments on my user talk page are violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are no "political sections of this project are controled by US intelligence operatives who recruit dupes to act as editors and administrators in their interest." I can tell you that the CIA does not have me edit articles on Pokémon or an obscure Japanese television show, so your arguments are moot. There is no "expose [sic]" to continue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Microsoft grammar check is not the arbiter of language in any reputable literary organization. Your effort to establish it as a standard reveals your willingness to advance a false premise to rebut a sincere critique. Netscott wrote first (no second -- it was his attempt at correcting his early faux pas) to the effect that "Other terminology used to describe (subject) is (term1) and (term2)." When that errant correction was exposed, he tried again, refusing the simple, correct construction offered by the reviewer, instead offering a singular subject in reference to multiple objects. ("Another expression is (term1) and (term2)") Ask Bill Gates why Microsoft grammar checker doesn't catch that. Maybe your preferences are set to low. The problem here is exceptionally thin skin among far too many people with far too much power, and a gross willingness to attack, demean and dehumanize those who have sufficient concern for the publics integrity to post their strong disagreements with the project's direction from within the project namespace.

In re: your claim intelligence agencies have no role in controlling content or administration here, you offer a simple declaration based on your own perception, and straw man argument. Intelligence operatives don't need to control your activities on cartoons or videogame articles, except maybe in articles related to the video-game called Wikipedia. As a student at University of Miami, I doubt you possess the sophistication to recognize when your interests and behavioral inclinations (need for authority and recognition) are exploited by misinformation experts. We have compiled substantial circumstantial evidence, including admissions of particular administrators and a signed expose by a former media co-worker who attests a current Wikipedia admin heavily involved in controlling key articles related to international affairs was once fired from a media position for attempting to co-opt a major international investigation on behalf of a British intelligence agency. You might fool yourself, but some of us recognize the light of day when we see it shine.

Your unfounded claim that I am someone else did direct me to the page of the user you claim is me, where I found mention of yet another article detailing a basis for our suspisions. Wikipedia and the CIA, by Dr. Les Sachs. It is curious to note that Dr. Sachs was attacked -- and censored -- by US courts for publishing ideas such as those Wikimedia's unpaid staff attempt to exclude from their database. Skantada

Blocked indef

Blocked indefinitely for trolling and making false accusations against wikipedia editors and admins. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep guessing

Why is it that members of the Wikipedia cult can't accept the fact that there are numerous critics determined to force the Wikimedia Foundation to either honor or modify its false claims that a) this is an encyclopedia, b) that anyone can edit and c) that administrator's pretense of promoting civility is instead a concerted effort to fuel hostility so they can game the system and exclude those with whom they have ideological differences? I'm not a sockpuppet of anything. If I ever registered a user name here before I would make no more effort to remember it than I offer to remember temporary account names at any of the other insignificant Internet forums I visit during my far-ranging Internet activities.

Wikipedia daily sponges up new editors on the promise that wrong information is okay, but if a Foundation representative dislikes an expressed perception of their role in the project, or if an editor's critiques dig too deep for the comfort of those whose self-worth is invested in Wikipeda, those anonymous attack admins presume they have a license to launch sanctioned personal attacks. "Sockpuppet" is a standard and widely sanctioned dehumanizing attack intended to diminish the individuality of a person so attacked. We aren't fooled into trying to play nice with a group who uses insults as a standard administrative technique then denies the impropriety of such routine insults, yet tries to deny others the opportunity to respond in kind.

Nobody has been blocked. Some weak person with an administrative password here modified a database to alter access allowed using a particular string of letters. The person who composed the letters continues to expose Wikipedia, from within and from without, as do hundreds of others who work in concert, in loosely affiliated coalitions and independently as the occassion requires.

The "pockets of resistance" propaganda ruse didn't work for occupying forces in Iraq and it won't work for Wikipedia. We are everywhere, we are multiple and we are organic. We train each other. We exchange tactical and strategic information. We are joined by new allies each day. Wikipedia's innacuracy, it's unpaid staff's lack of concern for truth and the leadership's general lack of respect for humanity is confirmed among our new allies when they are dehumanized by adminstrators who claim the new allies are not expressing their own genuine original thoughts out of sincere concern for the vast majority of the world that is not part of the false "you" of Internet addicts named person of the year by Time magazine. Thank you for your exceptionally poor soldiering, which does tons to help our cause. Skantada 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You keeping saying "our cause," but I cant seem to find who else is part of The Cause. How does one join the cause? Does The Cause have a website? KazakhPol 00:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)