User talk:Hannum7

== REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO ADD CITATIONS TO DELETED POSTING ==

Globalization is a large entry in Wikipedia, comprising several pages. The Anti-Globalization section at the end should do more than provide vague references and a general discussion of anti-globalist beliefs in general. It should not be just a sociological examination of the anti-globalists themselves. This section should state what those beliefs are, with specificity, not generality. My posting did so. It was concise, stated the plethora of issues important to the anti-globalists, and was written in a professional, editorial manner. You find articles of the same quality and style published every week in the NY Times Editorial page, etc.

I refer you to the book "The Case Against the Global Economy" by Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith. Each chapter is written by leading experts in the field of Globalization. Professors, learned book authors, former cabinet members, former congressmen, former industry leaders.

I refer you to the book "Small is Beautiful" by E. F. Schumacher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful Globalization is big. It is centralized control, big factories, big corporate plantations, big fleets of container ships.

Will you look at these books? Each of the facts and opinions contained in my posting came from, and is amply supported by massive citation, footnote, and chapter bibliographies. Will you view these authorities? Will you give me the chance to edit my posting by adding these books as authorities? I ask for the opportunity to make this edit. I will add several key references to the most learned and accepted books, in addition to the two cited above. It should be enough authority to satisfy you, I am sure.

These two leading books are not mentioned in Wikipedia's Globalization entry, nor are the facts, thoughts, and beliefs contained in them. That's why I wrote my insertion. And you took it out.

In contrast, a fair and factual reading of the Pro-Globalization section (or indeed, most of the passages in the first 3/4 of the Globalization entry, clearly shows numerous and, frankly, absurd statements of fact, opinion, and dogma, which should be stricken from the article. The corporate and banking elite, those who perpetuate the immoral wars in Vietnam and Iraq, global warming, 700 Billion bailouts that disappear, etc., hire thousands of Stanford and Harvard media and public relations experts to create and perpetuate the beliefs expressed in most of Wikipedia's Globalization entry.  To remove a few words to the contrary, a few words of truth and fact and correct thinking...  It is a disservice to Wikipedia's readers, who depend on Wikipedia for complete and balanced articles.

Watch Michael Moore's newest documentary, "CAPITALISM." You will see who the true vandals are, destroying the earth's environment, its diverse cultures, its self-sufficient and free pedestrian communities. Is Wikipedia yet another "mainstream media" mouthpiece for this establishment? Is Wikipedia owned by, bought by those entrenched big boys? Why did you remove my entire posting? Do you honestly believe that none of its sections are constructive? Tell me what was wrong with them. Don;t just slap a label "Vandalism." That is censorship.

Will you give me the chance to make the above edit, to add the authorities and book citations to my posting? --Hannum7 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Globalization 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. --Happy new Headcheese!- hexa Chord 2  00:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Globalization 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. South Bay (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Globalization
Please discuss changes and/or dissatisfaction with an article on its talk page. Do NOT vandalize the article. If you continue to vandalize the page, you will be blocked.--Loodog (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Globalization constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Patrick (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Last warning before longer block
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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. –BMRR (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that every editor has just as much ownership of the article as any other editor; referring to it as "your" article or "your" work is not likely to be well received. Just something to keep in mind. –BMRR (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Rail transport in the United States, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –BMRR (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Rail transport in the United States, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. –BMRR (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 2 weeks from editing for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

September 2012
I am just  letting  you  know that  I  have reverted your edits to  Requests for permissions/Confirmed. The reasons for this are: Please note that kind of disruption  is unacceptable and further instances may  lead to  you  being  blocked from  editing  again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are already confirmed
 * Permission requests is not the venue for requesting  edit  requests.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

December 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Euromaidan, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ''Wikipedia is not a blog and not a soapbox. Please do not add essays to articles.'' Novusuna talk 05:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Euromaidan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I've warned you twice now, please refrain from conduct such as this. Львівське (говорити) 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Globalization, however, the large edit you made added many incorrectly formatted references to an article that already has a considerable number of incorrectly formatted references. Others do not have time at the moment to correct these references. Please familiarize yourself with the reference format and citation template being used. After making those corrections your additional material can be added again but may need additional copy editing to conform to encyclopedic style. Thank you. Meclee (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)