User talk:206.124.6.4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Thank you for experimenting with the page Police state on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Nick Catalano contrib talk 05:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Police state. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you feel that the edit I reverted should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Police state. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If you feel that the edit I reverted should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Police State, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. *~Daniel~* ☎ 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Thε Halo Θ 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. Thε Halo Θ 15:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Then stop reverting the true addition to the article. 206.124.6.4 15:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but the fact is that the USA isn't a police state. The opening of Police state reads: "A police state is a state with authority which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, even through violent or arbitrary means if necessary." This is certainly not true of the situation in the US. Also you do not provide any supporting oppinions from a veriviable source. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Therefore, please stop adding thos POV opinion, as it will lead to your block. Thank you. Thε Halo Θ 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. The US Government does exactly that. Just do a web search on "police state." It's quite obvious. YOUR NNPOV should lead to a block of YOUR access.

You believe everything the internet tells you? Oh God... Sergeant Snopake 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Do you believe everything your fascist government tells you? 206.124.6.4 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but I do have the power to come to non-crazy/paranoid conclusions... Sergeant Snopake 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me. I'm pretty liberal and the USA is still very far away from being a police state. Sure its going that way but calling it a police state trivializes states that would have everyone on the New York Times hung, would have every Democratic party member jailed, would not let you write this, and would be breaking into your house right now.--Gdo01 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your hyperbole is not particularly entertaining. It's infeasible to do the things you suggest. Homeland Security is doing what is feasible--and they're doing it in plain sight. Apparently you feel GOOD about the fact that the Patriot Act allows people to be dragged away in secret with threat of the same treatment for anyone who discloses that fact. Apparently you feel GOOD about the fact that thousands were jailed subsequent to the institution of the Patriot Act (THAT WERE ADMITTED) and the government has never disclosed who they were or why they were abducted. That's fresh! 206.124.6.4 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And the name of the US secret police? How many people have had knocks on the door in the middle of the night and been killed by this police state? Just because you do a web search doesn't make it true. Anyway, again: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." which makes your edits vandalism. if you continue in this mannor, you will be blocked. Thε Halo Θ 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Their name is Homeland Security, and they operate in the open as did the SS. Many people disappear in the middle of the night, and there is legislation on the books called the Patriot Act which makes it illegal to discuss it. I provided plenty of verifiability, which I'm sorry you have ignored. I'm also sorry you're afraid of the truth to the extent that you wish to conspire with the police state and block it. You, my friend, have verified your own participation in it. 206.124.6.4

Is anyone breaking into your house, by the way? I thought not. Sergeant Snopake 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What an idiot! Just because they haven't broken into MY house yet, I'm supposed to be happy? The vast majority of homes were NOT broken into by Nazi Germany. The proof of the police state is rubes like you, just like Hitler's rubes, who defend the police state with truisms. 206.124.6.4 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this is really getting entertaining! the hippie's lost it. Sergeant Snopake 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks such as yours are very popular amongst police state supporting rubes.

The fact of the matter is that, while you might not like patriot act, or the US government (not many people do) but that DOESN'T make it a police state, by the actual definition of the term. Therefore, your edits to the article don't belong there. Thank you. Thε Halo Θ 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the fact of the matter is that they USE the Patriot Act as described in the Police State article. Sticking your nose in the sand doesn't make it go away. It encourages it. 206.124.6.4 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.Thε Halo Θ 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. You'll stop now--after reporting me to Homeland Security, I'm sure. You can erase the truth that easily, huh fascist? 206.124.6.4 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So, Britain's a police state, too? Please, tell me more. Sergeant Snopake 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that way, but I don't pay as much attention to what goes on there. 206.124.6.4 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you truly cared about the state of freedoms, you would know the state of freedom in our closest ally. You give people who truly disagree with the Patriot act a bad name.--Gdo01 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You're making no sense. So you support our loss of freedoms because we're free? Thanks for your worthless comment. 206.124.6.4 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, whatever your 'personal' views are, stop vandalising. You've been warned multible times. Sergeant Snopake 16:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on my Talk page

Thanks for the reply, but this is very controversial and I have added an entry on the Article's talk page. Feel free to explain yourself there. --Nick Catalano contrib talk 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Police state. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Sopranosmob781 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Syrthiss 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You gotta calm down, broham. Endlessly attacking pages without proper citation will only get you laughed at, your edits reverted, and such matter. If you can cite your claims and properly write relevant subject matter, it will be kept in the Wikipedia. Running around calling everyone a nazi and propegating Conspiracy Theories, however, does not help your case. Attack it from a new angle, and you should fare much better. Payneos 18:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming user talk page

Pleas refrain, or you will be blocked. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 10:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How about no, Scott? Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Austin Powers Trilogy would be a good hint. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 10:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Half a taunt, half a "no, it's not getting unprotected because you'll be attacking evernyone who has reverted you." Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 10:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for personal attacks, trolling, and being a dick for a duration of one month. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 10:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Police State

Calling the USA a police state is not so much an attack on the USA as it is excusing police states. Consider: an American student is trying to learn about (say) Nazi Germany or the Democratic Republic of Germany; he sees the term "police state" applied to that state, comes to this article, and finds that the USA is also a police state. The logical extropolation for this is basically "Well, Nazi Germany (or East Germany or whatever) was pretty much like the US", thus the student, knowing that US has pretty much free speech, free press, jury trial, Bill of Rights, rule of law, and the rest, is being led to believe that Nazi Germany (or whatever) must have been a pretty OK place, all that negative stuff must be overblown. Why would anyone want to leave that impression?

Look, we're all concerned about recent developments in the USA. That doesn't make the USA a police state, and saying that it does insults the memory, pain, and bravery of the White rose and everyone like that.

I know you're in early stage adult development (I figure you're 22, 23 at most; if you're older, you should be ashamed of yourself) and thus tend to see things in black and white polarized terms. Perhaps you have recently discovered that the USA is imperfect, therefore (to you) it must be wholly bad. But your activity is just flat annoying to the rest of us. We're busy, OK? There are many, many blogs and web sites that would eagerly accept your essays on the perfidity of the USA, perhaps your activity would be better focussed there rather than here, where at any rate all your material will be swiftly deleted anyway.

OK? When you've grown up some, come back. Until then perhaps you'd best take the hints. Herostratus 13:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of this term should not be rarified in order to draw distinction between existing police states and the worst that have existed--it should be trumpeted to alert the frog that he is in boiling water. Just because a police state is not as bad as Nazi Germany does not make it "pretty much like the US," and it is fairly alarming to hear anyone suggest a reasonable person, however ignorant of history, would draw that conclusion. Let's face it. In many ways, Nazi Germany is considered the worst case scenario. Nevertheless, even in Nazi Germany, most of the civilian public was allowed to live their lives without interference--provided of course that they knew where to step to avoid the political mines. You say the US "pretty much has" free speech, free press, jury trials, Bill of Rights, the rule of law, etc., but in using the qualifier, you automatically open the door to the plain fact that each and every one of those has been abridged in one or many ways. The advancement of the police state in most of the freest nations known, and particularly in the nation most associated with liberty in our time, is very troublesome, and to deny it is to invite those police states to approach or surpass the most ugly examples in recorded history. Denying it or taking pride in the extent to which it is imperfectly true will guarantee a repeat performance of the worst atrocities in history. Doing so thus far has already demonstrated this inevitability. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 03:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/6/User_talk%7E206.124.6.4.html"