User talk:Agendabender

Hi Agendabender. I would like to remind you of an edit you suggested regarding the Vidcon page earlier in the year. I think it is a worthwhile suggestion as I feel as strongly as you do on the subject. Having been challenged for a source, four days after you made the suggestion or so, a complete video was made (albeit by the harassee) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vyvv7P6Ldo on the subject. Despite the inherent bias I believe it to be an factual account; that highlights what you describe. What do you think? (I think you should make the addition to the main the page; if you still care about the topic). Thanks. Olijones (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Great that you wanted to talk about the banana peel in the tree, and thank you for providing a source. That's what we like! However, in my opinion, the event is really not notable enough for a Wikipedia mention. I'm sure you feel that it is (since I have a feeling you were involved with it somehow or attends the varsity), but it's not really of interest to people reading about the university in general. How you understand and have a great day! I'll throw in a welcoming too. Gaioa (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)'


 * I am surprised it took as long as it did for someone to remove that. I suggest reinstating it, if you wouldn't mind. Given that almost all searches of the school's name yield that it's only notability to the majority of the world is the banana incident, I see it as hugely notable. So does the media, and so does anyone searching for the school. I understand it seems ridiculous, but it is not for us to judge - they chose to react the way they did to a banana peel. We might see it as silly, but it's not our role to judge it merely to document what is notable. It's not as if it was a small thing either. They completely overhauled a curriculum, held several university wide investigations, seminars, counselling sessions, and spent a huge amount of money on it including hiring a marketing firm to 'handle' the PR spin.


 * And to date it is the only significantly notable thing about them - especially on a global stage. I understand the university might want to cover it up because it makes them look somewhat insane, but again, that's not our responsibility. On the contrary, assisting them in burying this story would be a clear case of POV. (I have posted this on your talk page as well, for ease of viewing.) Agendabender (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Agendabender! Thank you for your contributions. I am Gaioa and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Gaioa (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Important alert regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people
Neutralitytalk 01:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Neutralitytalk 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked you from editing for the following reasons:


 * 1) This unexplained antisemitic vandalism.
 * 2) A pattern of agenda-driven editing, as reflected in your edit history and username.
 * 3) Your unverified claim on your user page to have "edited here in the past" and been a "moderator" (presumably meaning an admin) on Wikipedia in the past, which raises questions regarding sock puppetry. --Neutralitytalk 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This block was discussed at WP:ANI. Recording for posterity. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This project has come to an end.
The initial outset that Wikipedia is lost as an encyclopedia and has been politicized and turned into a propaganda soap box has been proven in my opinion. Improving it's quality by calling our political bias, left or right wing, is impossible. It appears that, contrary to my initial belief, the political agenda is not from right wing editors, but left wing editors, with almost 100% of obvious NPOV breaches being from the left. It was an interesting little project, but I'm off to scramble my IP and roll a new account, there's no way to get unbanned here when people can ban you just because they disagree with you. This is just like reddit - I suggest people roll a new account every day to avoid the drama of the thought police. Agendabender (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that, contrary to my initial belief, the political agenda is not from right wing editors, but left wing editors So what you're saying is that you decided to push back against a right-wing bias by making antisemitic edits (or at least, installing an antisemitic plugin in your browser), making bizarrely ignorant right-wing claims and pushing right-wing conspiracy theories? I've heard of "fight fire with fire", but I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually work that way. Anyways, good luck with your next block appeal. For the record, if you continue to use this page as a platform to vent against perceived wrongs, you can have your ability to edit it taken away, as well. I suggest you not do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)