User talk:WickedEncyclopedia

Hal Turner

Inquiry: Was this edit made by you while not logged in? Also, note that regardless adding personal commentary such as "consider the source" to external links sections is unacceptable. As our edits such as this one. JoshuaZ 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you should be able to edit now. Note that in your block log, the block was mainly due to the edit above that I thought came from you. In any case, your edits leave a lot of be desired. Please be careful in the future. JoshuaZ 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently NOT able to edit and may I say your NPOV policy leaves a lot to be desired. You obviously side with the anti-Hal Turner crowd and protect their opinions at all costs. Frankly, it is disgusting. Also, you should consider the sources you site, as they have intense hatred for Hal Turner and will stop at nothing to discredit him. I doubt you even read those sources.

I now know what wikipedia is all about, political correctness at all costs, even if it violates the First Amendment.

You make me sick.

Do what you will, ban me from editing, it makes no difference to me, I WILL be back.

Before you come back, in that case, please take a moment to review our Civility policies, and, our policies on personal attacks. Comments like "You make me sick", sound a lot to me like a personal attack, and, are most uncivil. Also, note that the first amendment does not apply here, particularly, as Wikipedia is not congress, and, cannot pass laws. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You make me sick" is nothing compared to the comment made about me by a fellow wikipedia user. Go ahead and ride your high horse, above it all.

Wikipedia is the sorriest excuse for an encyclopedia I have ever had the misfortune to come across, not only you make me sick, but the one-sided policies of wikipedia make me sick as well. There is NO NPOV when it comes to certain topics, and you and all the admins should be ashamed to call this garbage an encyclopedia.

You are abridging the freedom of speech by deleting certain viewpoints while masquerading as a source of a type of journalism. WickedEncyclopedia 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is both a private and international entity. Just because its servers are in the US does not mean that its users are allowed to say whatever they want about living encyclopedia subjects. We have such policies in place to prevent legal troubles for the Wikimedia Foundation, such that an article's subject does not seek to sue Wikimedia for perceived damages. There is no reason to put your own social commentary into a biography. Wikipedia is not a journalistic project. It's an encyclopedic project. If you continue to contribute, keep this in mind, and bring up issues you have with the article on its talk page, as you have done, and not directly in the article text.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia may prefer to be know as an encyclopedic project, and in some cases it is, but on this wiki it is a journalistic project as it has no NPOV. WickedEncyclopedia 06:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. It is not a journalistic project in any way shape or form. It is directed at creating articles that have a neutral point of view, showing both sides of the debate if one exists. The article on Hal Turner is simply the subject of defacement by several groups of people online. If you see problems with the point of view, fix it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You like to think of it as a free encyclopedia and in some cases it is, I will grant you that. I hate to repeat myself again and again but when I fix the slanderous lies, they are simply deleted and replaced with more lies. The Hal Turner wiki IS a journalistic project, and that is shameful. WickedEncyclopedia 06:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the only secondary sources we have about Hal Turner state that people disagree with his viewpoints, then that's all that we can write about him in his article. If you have news sources in the mainstream media that praise him, then those viewpoints can be included in the article. If the only viewpoints we have say that he's completely and utterly wrong about everything, then that's all we can write about him here. Anything else will be original synthesis.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WickedEncylopedia, would you stop talking about the changes you plan to make, and just actually make them? So far, you've been all talk, and no work. Also, Wikipedia is independent to the United States government, so First Amendment freedoms do not need to apply here. See Wikipedia:Free speech for more. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you claim that when you "fix the slanderous lies, they are simply deleted and replaced with more lies." There is no indication that you have actually any worthwhile material improving the article, in terms of its neutrality. Most of your edits seem to be your personal commentary on the article's status. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal commentary just like the rest of the article, just a different viewpoint, hence the balance that leads to NPOV. WickedEncyclopedia 07:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not how NPOV works. You cannot put in your own opinion just because you think it fixes it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to warn people against taking your one-sided sources too seriously, but that was deleted. So much for NPOV. WickedEncyclopedia 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it seems to work around here. Your "sources" are biased against Hal Turner, which I believe is why you chose them, you hide behind biased sources and pretend to be an encyclopedia, but in this case it is simply a smear campaign against Hal Turner. WickedEncyclopedia 07:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not even providing sources. We have sources, and they might be giving one side of the story. Find reliable sources (you can't just write "xx" and say you are the ultimate source regarding that knowledge) and add information that corresponds with the sources. That way, you can balance the article to a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You're here as well, so by criticizing Wikipedia's editors, you're also criticizing yourself. Please also follow the Manual of Style. Your edits seem to be written in a non-encyclopedic style, which is why people are keen on reverting your edits (most of your edits seem to be commentary, nonetheless). If you need any more help, let me know. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on the discussion page. The "sources" listed at the end of the article are accepted by those who do not think critically, therefore there is no getting through to them. Site the ADL, One Peoples'Project or the SPLC and Wikipedia readers will mindlessly accept what they tell them. What is to stop those organizations from making up lies in order to slander their enemies? Nothing, that's what. WickedEncyclopedia 07:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fuck off and die, you stupid steaming sack of rat shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.247.55 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hah, that's the best you intellectual geniuses can come up with? You really do make me sad, so brain-dead as to follow the politically correct crowd mindlessly and attack anyone with a different viewpoint or anyone who defends their right to that viewpoint.ohhhh and next time sign your vulgar attack you coward. WickedEncyclopedia 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Because of your obvious stance on several issues and your inability to see Wikipedia as everything but an encyclopedia, you have been blocked indefinitely from editting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]