User talk:Dragonstrat

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Hammond organ, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

November 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Screen Gems. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. azumanga (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Doomsday Preppers, you may be blocked from editing. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  13:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Where does research end and synthesis begin? Vague set of rules based on who's criteria? History is basically re written on a daily basis to suit an outcome. Look around, its everywhere with no one really knowing what's wrong or right and more and more uninformed people taking information as verbatim just because they've seen it on Wikipedia. If you can only report what one group considers as valid, how does this make Wikipedia a useful tool? Not anymore than the History Channel spending millions on a film episode to brainwash the watcher into accepting their synthesis of history. Its arbitrary! Its synthesis too! If you insist I be banned then do so as your Wikipedia will soon reach its own undoing by being closed minded and one sided. Censoring what it does not wish others to ponder. What's the use being part of a narrow minded information gathering "society" if all is considered speculation until one group becomes the touchstone of information? One has eyes and a brain. Not everything is cut and dried. It can always be erased and overwritten. You must be afraid of certain information for you to send such a message. There is much info distortion coming form supposedly trusted sources. When the world was discovered to be round instead of flat didn't the presenter of a new point of view suffer the gauntlet of "authority?" Time to tweak the zeitgeist to think outside the matrix. Information needs to flow. Not be tied to someone's whipping post.