User talk:71.241.218.107

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Operation Rescue (Kansas) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Rescue (Kansas)

Hi there. I have reverted your edit to Operation Rescue (Kansas) based on Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Self-identifying_terms. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think that the policy that Dawn bard linked to is wrong, the onus is on you to start a discussion to change it. Stop accusing people of being "right-wing" and "not understanding what consensus is". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The "right-wing" comment was related to something outside our exchange. But I'm sure that won't stop you from butting in and reverting my edits to that other article as well, just because you can get away with it.

You quite obviously don't understand what "consensus" means. It's an observation, not an accusation. Seriously, look it up.

And stop waving policy in my face.

Per http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus, a consensus is a "general agreement". The policy that Dawn bard linked to, and indeed all policies on the site, are a result of a general agreement of most editors on Wikipedia.

IAR ends exactly where another editor disagrees with you. If you decide you want to ignore all rules, you had better be prepared to explain yourself. Especially if your actions are in explicit opposition with an existing policy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, simply put, is when opposing views are considered and every effort is made to fold them into any decisions that are made. You clearly don't understand this. You clearly equate consensus with democracy.

You clearly don't understand what IAR means, either. Your description renders it meaningless.

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page National-Anarchism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Gpia7r (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page National-Anarchism. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. MuZemike 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted in one second, then less than a second. Well, at least two more neo-Nazis have been exposed.

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 may also click on the signature button 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) 06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery

Wage slavery. Please do not remove sourced information that is stable in the article without discussion on the talk page. Your edit summary sounded like an opinion or original research as to the removal. skip sievert (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was perfectly "stable" before you and your fellow right-wing extremists expropriated it from its primary maintainer, which you did on ideological grounds. And now you're lacing it with right-wing apologetics for wage-slavery, much of it utterly nonsensical, such as that I removed. The summary explained the reasoning, which is perfectly sound. I didn't expect for a nanosecond that my edit would survive the deathgrip of the capitalist fundamentalists who now own the article, but perhaps someone higher up in the WP hierarchy, or with a better connection among the Randroid nomenklatura, will see my edit and agree with it and make it stick, in spite of you and your fellow Invisible Hand worshipers.

Suit yourself but you pretty much have things wrong as to what is going on. Also this might be a good reference point for you, and I do not mean it negatively Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. Wikipedia has pretty strict criteria and also things like this Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Name calling is not going to help things. If you have some ideas put them on the talk page for discussion. Removing reffed sourced sections of the article is not a good idea. It is an encyclopedia article... not a blog or forum. Editors are usually not considered notable and truth giving or information removal is not good, especially when a point by doing so is trying to be made, that is said to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... also not a good idea. skip sievert (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I am under no obligation to grovel for permission of the owners before making edits. I am encouraged to be bold.

2. "Stability" is a ploy to intimidate would-be editors. An owner declares an article "stable," thus magically transforming would-be editors into would-be vandals who threaten "stability." It also means that the owner is perpetually assuming bad faith. Moreover, the owner, when enforcing the article lockdown and reverting unapproved edits, commits gross hypocrisy by disturbing the new state of stability.

2 is an extension of 1; a justification for why I need permission from you to edit. Of course, I could simply go back to any point in the article's history and declare stability, but I'm not in a position to intimidate you, because I don't spend my time forming alliances with my ideological comrades to help me run you off those articles that expose the horrors of my ideology.

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Capitalism, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that capitalism is an economic system whereby one group (capitalists) exist by stealing the fruits of the labor of another group (workers). Capitalism is therefore an example of intraspecific kleptoparasitism. The redirect improved the encyclopedia by removing redundancy. Since you've elected to revert the improvement, it would appear that it is you who are not interested in making "constructive contributions to Wikipedia," and you who qualifies as a vandal.

Please stay away from my talk page - particularly if you are going to spout nonsense fringe theories about topics you obviously fail to have a solid grasp of. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The only nonsense is your belief that economics is defined as the nonsense spouted by the apologists of capitalism. Note that your comrade, who polices your talk page for you, is an unrepentant advocate of sweatshops. I'll run intellectual circles around both of you on the subject of the economic feudalism you both espouse. As for your talk page, it is perfectly clear why you don't want my comments there: because they hit your ideology where it hurts. You allow all manner of disagreement on your page, unless it tears down your barbaric market fundamentalist religion, or your hypocrisy as an editor.