User talk:Seig Fritz

December 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Fat acceptance movement has been reverted. Your edit here to Fat acceptance movement was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://biggerfatterblog.blogspot.com/, https://biggerfatterblog.blogspot.com/, https://naafa.blogspot.com/, https://biggerfatterpolitics.blogspot.com/, https://gastricbypasskills.blogspot.com/, https://lowcarbkills.blogspot.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. ''This edit, where you maligned a bot which removes blacklisted urls, was unacceptable. Please review our policies on no personal attacks and not using talk pages as forums.''  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 03:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There are many reasons for why I should be unblocked. History will show that I made one edit to a disjointed article about the fat acceptance movement and fat feminism. The admin lording over that article banned me for making one edit. The reason for the ban were bogus. Vague terms were used to justify this banning an when I complained the stonewalling and abuse by her EvergreenFir a fat feminist and someone calling himself NeilN escalated.

The reasons given for the ban and abuse were:

1. Maligning a bot. That did not happen and it cannot happen. It's a lie.

2. Disruptive editing. I made one edit and it was not disruptive editing according to Wikipedia rules. The truth is simple. The womyn lording over the fat acceptance movement/fat feminism page didn't like what I wrote in the criticism section so that womyn called it inapproriate discussion and after several requests from be why she thought in her judgment she would not respond.

3. What is going on at Wikipedia is censorship and reprisals aimed at unpopular speech or anything the challenges group think or disrupt the echo chamber. Some people would describe this as hard fascism.

4. Most people, even fat people believe that the fat acceptance is absurd because it is and most people believe that fat feminism is even more absurd. The fact that the womyn lording over that article refused to discuss my edit or explain why she thought it was disruptive and inappropriate tells me that she lacks the courage of her conviction to defend her position.

5. The Bias: EvergreenFir is claims that she is a Women's Study's Professor at a college in Wisconsin. (I won't divulge which one.) Chances are she is biased because there are a lot of people within academia and outside academia who would argue that Fat Feminism, Fat Acceptance, and Womens Studies is a farce.

6. Censoring of URLs: One of the harshest critics of fat acceptance and feminism is Fat Bastardo of Bigger Fatter Blog and Bigger Fatter Politics and The NAAFA Blogspot Blog. Someone at wikipedia banned those blogs. It seems that unpopular speech is verboten on Wikipedia.

7. Hostility towards criticism: Let's be honest. Wikipedia is losing high quality editors and administrators because of the censorship and edit wars.

8. The intellectual dishonesty and cowardice: In this case the intellectual cowardice is evident by the Administrators' unwillingness to discuss their rulings with me and their refusal to admit they were wrong. They have continually stonewalled, made dishonest accusation regarding my intent, made up rules.

9. Administrators making up rules: One administrator accused me of "Cross-wiki abuse". There is no such thing as Cross-wiki abuse. When cops make up laws in order to harass people they get fired.

10. The decline of Wikipedia: It is no secret that Wikipedia is in deep trouble. If you don't believe me do a Bing or Duck Duck Go search. What overly zealous dishonest agenda driven bigoted small-minded authoritarian Wikipedia have done to me and many many others is why Wikipedia is in decline. Wikipedia has descended into a strange form of totalitarian anarchy. That is the best way I can describe it right now.

Conclusion: Wikipedia was a good idea when it first started but today it is chaotic and lacks accountability and the leadership at Wikipedia either can't or won't enforce accountability or end the chaos. As a result of their unwillingness or inability to end create accountability and bring some much needed order people are being defamed and others are being misled all for the agenda of dishonest agenda, driven, poorly vetted and unqualified editors and administrators like the ones who conspired against me and ganged up on me.

The editor/administrators in this case at least need to be severely reprimanded and ideally removed since they have shown themselves to be unprincipled and perfidious. They have behaved shamefully in their unbridled and despotic ways of controlling content while advancing their shady agendas. Liars and control freaks do not belong at a site like Wikipedia in any way shape or form.

I'm not through with this issue and I have not alone in this. Wikipedia's agents would be wise to do the right thing but based on what has transpired so far all I can think is that they have no intention of behaving in a fair, honest and ethical manner. Perhaps they don't know what fairness, honesty, and ethics are? They must be feeling quite butt hurt right now. FYI  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just gotta add, I love how "maligning a bot" is a "lie", but the user clearly called a bot "the biased editor who removed [the content]"  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw this earlier, spent the time it deserved considering it, and moved on. It's the typical "Wikipedia is failing" rant we've been hearing for the past ten years. --Neil N  talk to me 10:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Neil N  talk to me 23:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)