User talk:Cheesewright

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

reality
hello. I don't know why the post that I put on the reality page would be considered vandalism. I love to have a lively debate about the influence that Jean Baudrillard has on modern postmodern philosophy of reality. Perhaps, since you seem to be on Wikipedia right now, you would like to check it out: Jean Baudrillard. Beyond that, the information about Stephen Colbert in no way comprimises Wikipedia OR for that matter, detracts from the article about reality.


 * You have given no verifiable source for this insight, you have inserted into inappropriate articles, you have repeatedly re-inserted it after it has been approved, you have inserted it into protected pages -- pages protected specifically against your attacks -- and you have done so under a variety of aliases. All that makes you a vandal.1Z 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern philosophy of subjective truth supports the contention that 'reality is a commodity.' Furthermore, the statement that I added to the page was in no way false or misleading. Microsoft's disinformation on wikipedia is in line with the conception that money can buy the perception of reality. In fact, users who read and rely on wikipedia should be able to access information about the current debate on reality and its relation to the wikipedia project. Finally, wikipedia's "welcome page" to which you reverted me (which, thank you, I am award of), defines vandalism as: "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I think I have shown why the post was not inteded and effectually did not comprimise the integrity of wikipedia. Beyond that, my justification should show that in no way was that my intention. Your removal of information posted on that page is much closer to vandalism than mine. Sadly, my complaint will likely go unheard. Why? Because Colbert is someone who makes jokes about the face that wikipedia may not be the utmost in reliable sources. That's true. But he also recognizes the potential that the web site has. You're rash action proved the point he's trying to make: when what "comprimises the integrity of wikipedia" is up to anyone, reality can be skewed. you, my friend, just did that. shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheesewright (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Message posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Rkitko (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Permutation (policy debate) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Permutation (policy debate) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Permutation (policy debate) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Icebob99 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)