User talk:Praxidikai

Welcome!

Hello, Praxidikai, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Please also note that conspiracy theorists generally leave the Wikipedia project voluntarily or by being banned from editing. Our editors frown on conspiracy theorists attempting to add their unique world view into otherwise useful articles. I mention this only because your edit history indicates that you hold beliefs that most people would consider to be conspiracy theories. I've added some links to the top of this page. You'll find them useful in that they help explain in much greater detail what Wikipedia is about. If you can conform to our standards, you will be welcome here. If not, you will find your time and energies better spent elsewhere. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Someone will be along to answer them. Rklawton (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please make yourself aware of our policies against the creation and use of suck puppets. And please don't waste my time by denying it. We have a check user process that shows all the IP addresses used by various accounts to edit Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I've never been banned from wikka wakka. Praxidikai (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
I would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors.Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been very clear when I've kindly asked for some basic civility. This is definition of defamation. And you boys are talking about neutrality? You should leave us be now. Praxidikai (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Attacking me as well does not help you. I can not see any defamation in that discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you hurt? Praxidikai (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Wikipedias rules against personal attacks are not dependant on whether the attacked feels hurt or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your last comment about me claims that I insulted somebodys (apparently Fisks) intelligence, which is borderline on being another personal attack. I therefore kindly remind you to stop discussing me or any other editors, and discuss the article instead. If you continue your personal attacks, this will lead to you being blocked, which neither you nor me has any interest in. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification.
Ahmidinejad is not a reliable source. Sorry for being unclear. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thought so, one of these days you'll have to tell me why you speak conspiracy while we discuss facts, and why are you so eager to misinterpret and misconstrue the topic of discussion when it is as clear as logic itself. Are you acquainted with basic guidelines of community? Perhaps you should take another look at the ways we cite and reference our material? Thanks. Praxidikai (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the number of editors who disagree with you, one would think that it is YOU who would pause a moment to consider what is wrong with your approach. Just sayin'.  Rklawton (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Praxidikai, but I do not misinterpret, I am acquainted with basic guidelines of community, and I have taken a look at it. And you do not speak of facts. None of the changes you have suggested or supported, or the discussions you have had, has in any way been even remotely about facts. If you really thing this are factual disputes, stop discussing me or other editors. Completely. Try to not ever use the word "you" in anything you write for a week, and see what happens. Because not only are the disputes not about facts, almost all comments you make are about how horrible everyone else is that doesn't agree with you. That is *not* a constructive path. OK? Can we agree on this? You don't discuss me, mention me or make remarks about me or any other editor, and I do the same towards you. How does that sound? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take a revision, see what we've spoke of in recent past, you'll see mirror image of what you've wrote. Take a look, it was request made in kind, to refrain from, what i like to call defamation.., yet moment later fellow contributor barges in and calls me 'conspiracy pusher', as we speak about 'advance knowledge debate'. Wouldn't be much trouble, but he's saying it while we have such lovely 'truth about conspiracy theories' reference for reference? Is it incivility? Nope, it is an insult. So, while you thinking about perspectives, we're ok, no pushmepullyou and all that. Praxidikai (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't the foggiest clue to what you are talking about. I can't follow your association paths, you have to specific.
 * But I'm happy we agree on discussing the topic, not each other, and I also think your recent comments have been specific and constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Except the "You speak as a true conspiracy theorist" comment. Stop that, or you will end up blocked. This is the last time I'm asking you nicely, in the future I will add warning templates every time you make derogatory personal comments like that, smileys or not. Keep civil, discuss the topic, not the editors. OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So how many times you've left warning template at RkLawtons palace? To him, everyone who doesn't march down the line is nothing but a conspiracy theorists. Why isn't he banned already? I'll repeat, I've came in and, after initial shock, accept the standards. I'm glad that we both agree those should be set much higher. Praxidikai (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not read everything he writes. I am not the only person involved in this discussion and has no responsibility to warn everyone every time they make something wrong. He is not blocked for the simple reason that he hasn't broken enough rules enough times to be blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, per a years-old arbcom ruling, the 9/11 article has special rules in order to more quickly get rid of users like this one. It's just a matter of following the steps.  And yes, this user should have been blocked under these rules a couple of weeks ago.  Rklawton (talk) 03:03, 9 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, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Turian  ( talk )  17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Intent
Do you have any desire to edit Wikipedia in a manner other than to promote conspiracy theories, or is this pretty much it? Rklawton (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA –Turian  ( talk )  18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a desire to contribute. :) Praxidikai (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contributions, I have serious doubts about that. –Turian  ( talk )  18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume some good faith, it works for me... Say, how did you play, was it all paragon or renegade? Did you strive to be more balanced character? And the resources? How long it took to get enough of them? Remarkable game, for sure. Praxidikai (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted: you have answered, but you have not answered the question.  Rklawton (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop, or I will report you to the AN. –Turian  ( talk )  22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have closed your conspiracy ploy as it had no relevance to the article and was pushing fringe theories. Do not reopen it. –Turian  ( talk )  22:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You've misused your privileges, again? Praxidikai (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Praxidikai. Thank you. –Turian  ( talk )  19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Final warning for tendentious editing and personal attacks
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your . Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And it will all happen sooner than you expect. : ) With best wishes to all, as ever. Praxidikai (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)