User talk:Chinatown670

March 2010
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Hello. That page is for discussing improvements to the What Wikipedia is not page, not for soapboxing and not a place to link to your blog. Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings people of earth. . .just kidding. This is exactly what I was soliloquizing about. The current generation of Wikipedia editors who believe that they are intellectually capable enough to judge for others what is and is not relevant information. Do not misunderstand; those are not fighting words. It is my belief that no one has the capacity to tell someone else what is and what might be meaningful to them. Any and all truth should be inclusive to Wikipedia, regardless of how little import it brings to the world. If it is meaningful for some then it is worthy of consideration and publication.

In fact logically the entire attempt to filter and control relevant information can be seen as flawed. For it is quite impossible for a system that allows all to contribute to succeed in any self-filtering besides the usual academic standards of truth and clarity. If a page is truthful and accurate in the information that it is presenting than it should be allowed to remain. The Notability Requirement is logically untenable. .  .   In an a priori sense the notion of Wikipedian self-filtering is flawed for if any subsection acts to delete information of another subset they do so without the metaphysical justification to do so. So, if Wikipedia is truly to become the Haven for Open Source Information that it was created to be then the Notability requirement must be removed. Also the "flaw" of being overly detailed. Now I have never known anyone to fail in anything because they or their reports were too detail oriented. Smaller details matter to those more involved with the information in question. The old adage of a specialist comes to mind. "A specialist is a person who studies so they can know more and more about less and less . . .till one day they know everything there is to know about nothing". Wikipedia should be used by both professionals and laymen, by both academics, students and novices. It must contain both general information and complex data. Also serious consideration must be given to the accusations of trivial importance and of non-relevance. Truth is and always should be of paramount concern. --Chinatown670 (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There was this one time, where I read this article, and the article, you know, was about this guy, and this guy, he made this computer program, you know, that did some neat stuff. Like this program thing, it could write papers and things, and they kind of made sense and kind of didn't, they said a lot without saying anything, but sometimes people would read them, and even sometimes they would think they were good, but really they were just reading random things a computer made up. Are you that thing I read about? Beach drifter (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oww my feelings. But still ad hominem attacks prove that you have nothing constructive to say. I'm sorry if you are unable to understand my writing. Social theory and Law are extremely complex. It does take a certain amount of study to master even the basic concepts. I am attempting to stem the tide of moralism and corporate interests that are infecting Wikipedia. But I suppose you'd rather gibber and throw your feces at me than actually discuss something calmly and rationally. It baffles my mind the grade-school education some of these editors must have. I mean seriously how old are you? Seventeen? Nineteen? Honestly I apologize if my writing went over your head. It was not my intention to confuse you. Perhaps I should be attempting to convince an editor who can actually understand social concepts. Or possibly one who knows what puberty is. --Chinatown670 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Censorship. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that Wikipedia administrators can block editors who engage in vandalism and other disruptive behavior. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for '''declaring that you would "fight until the usurpers and censorors of Wikipedia are defeated and their attempts at hegemonic censorship revealed for the thought control that it is." Wikipedia is not a battleground'''. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)