A couple of things: first, please remove the url from your signature (per our signature guidelines). Second, your edit to kangaroo court was disruptive, please keep disputes to the Talk pages and project space. Guy 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Stop trolling Wikipedia. Go hang out in Hot Topic. 137.165.210.41 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Edward G. Nilges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.25.77 ( talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I contributed a lot of content which remains at the Poussin, Adorno, Kant and other sites because I can writ gude wif korrect speling and gramer. But my literacy offends your basic Wikinerd, who's an unemployed software developer still in denial and working at Costco and a member of the right wing of organized religion: a Trogdolyte rattling his chains thinking them music.

I posted an analysis of why Rand is no philosopher that you as an anarchist may find interesting.

In my view, a "philosopher" is someone recognized recursively by an already recognized member of the set of philosophers, going back to Heraclitus in the West, and Kong Fu-Zi (Confucius) in China. This is because self-organized civil society predated institutions.

I would call myself a socialist and not an anarchist, because I believe civil society institutions can be reformed, and because anarchism in the USA is generally right-wing.

You may contact me at spinoza1111@yahoo.com. I blog at spinoza1111.wordpress.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.25.77 ( talk) 13:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Would you have the original language for the ottawa panhanders union article? I am creating a subsection on the IWW main article about the IWW in canada, and it is going to be mostly flushed out with that. Thanks and Solidarity! Transcona Slim 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)(UTC) reply

Let's see, a big fan of Phyllis Schlafly, Matt Drudge, Richard Nixon, Robert Taft, et al., and you have an obsession with associating a far-left black activist with crack cocaine. Gee, could there be a political agenda here? Your racism is not appreciated. SmashTheState 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rkevins 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Is anyone else tired and embarrassed for the Wikipedian ideal of objective, dispassionate discourse? All the sockpuppets, all the hackjobs, all the infighting, WikiScanner showing where edits really come from... It's all very depressing. In my personal experience, I've edited an article repeatedly only to have it revert -- over and over again -- to a whitewash of the facts. In the end, it's the person with an axe to grind and too much free time on their hand that wins the day. -- Nik 20:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey Smash -- awesome username! I saw your note about the deletion of the article. I feel like I'm in a pretty good position to respond to this, since I've been involved in anarchist activism for about 10 years, and since I'm also an admin here on the English WP. I think you're jumping the gun by getting upset. The article was deleted as non-notable, but that doesn't mean that the organization itself is unworthy of an article. It just means that the article in the state it was in at the time did not do a good enough job of explaining how the group's notable.

The logs of the article still exist, and I can get them for you if you'd like to work on the article in your userspace (that is, any page beginning with User:SmashTheState/... such as User:SmashTheState/Sandbox). That way you can work on the article and I can let you know whether the article's likely to be kept with the progress you make with it. When folks decide it's ready, we can move it back into the mainspace (the article space). I've had a great deal of experience doing this. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pittsburgh Organizing Group (closed as delete) and Pittsburgh Organizing Group (a blue link!).

I have to have a look at the article and the deletion discussion - it may be that the group actually doesn't meet the notability criteria for organizations just yet. I suspect it does if it's true that it's been featured in multiple news sources (that's basically how you construct an argument for notability - cite sources). However, I want to be clear: if the article doesn't meet the notability criteria, we can't keep it. The argument about how the article is important for the group's organizing is irrelevant here; Wikipedia is a project to provide free, high quality information to as many people as possible, not a vehicle for promoting anything. If you want an article on Wikipedia, it has to be on Wikipedia's terms.

So anyway, I'm glad to help you with any of this. I hope we can deal with this calmly, your anger kind of intimidates me, to be perfectly honest. Plus, you'll find that being calm and friendly gets you a lot farther around here :)

Peace, delldot talk 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Please keep your own personal (incorrect) political views out of articles. Your edit here: False Political Statement is not appropriate. Please stop.-- InaMaka ( talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Please keep your impolite (rude) comments off my userpage. Your edit here: passive-aggressive trolling is not appropriate. Please stop. SmashTheState ( talk) 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Smash: You obviously do not know what "passive-aggressive" means because there is nothing "passive" about my comments. I made the perfectly legitimate comment that you should not add your own personal view point in an article such as what you did to the Jessica Sierra article, as you did here: False Political Statement. Now, I pointed out your inappropriate edit and you have chosen to personally attack me with the term "passive-aggressive", but of course you did not know how to use the term correctly. Have a good day!-- InaMaka ( talk) 15:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Telling someone their comments are "personal" is one thing. Telling them they are "incorrect" is another. I'd have to agree that you're being passive-aggressive. (For example, a snide comment in parentheses? That's pretty passive-aggressive.) -- Nik ( talk) 19:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

No. You are wrong. There is nothing "passive-aggressive" about my comments. I am completely above board in my critic of his comments. I have stated clearly without any attempts to hide my point of view that I found his edit of the article both "incorrect"--which I repeat again here--and "personal". I found them to both "personal" which violates Wikipedia policy and I found them from a personal level incorrect. He provided his opinion and I commented on his opinion with my own opinion that he is incorrect. So let me state again, not in the Edit Summary (but I will repeat it there also) that his comment was incorrect and wrong. Now, I have to point out that you, just like Smash, do not know or understand what "passive-aggressive" means. I think both of you believe that you are somehow slighting me, but all you are both doing is demonstrating without doubt your lack of understanding of the term "passive-aggressive". So to repeat: Smash's inappropriate edit was incorrect, personal, wrong and without merit. Should I add to the list? Its your choice. Have a good day!-- InaMaka ( talk) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

God, I hate Wikipedians. -- Nik ( talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL, classic comedic dialogue. Hey but Andy, you're just making these people up, right? Especially this Ima Hooka figure or whatever her moniker is... Nice work but beware of fictional overkill... no one is this seriously demented in RL!-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 13:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

That article is intended to be solely about military history. That is clearly stated. There are several fine articles devoted to CIA operations. Why do you feel the need to clutter this article with off topic entries that belong elsewhere? Niteshift36 ( talk) 06:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I removed the inappropriate level-3 warning for personal attacks since this was not a personal attack. If you have a citation for shoop being used for photoshop, and it's notable, it should be added to Photo manipulation#Photoshopping, and afterwards that entry should be added to Shoop. Cheers! -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

just letting interested editors know i'm going to attempt to get this back in, see talk:Shoop-- Mongreilf ( talk) 10:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey man, I just call em like I see em. I didn't think those articles were particularly relevant so I nominated them for deletion. Did I find them through each other? Yes. I'm sorry if they're all related to your particular brand of "activism". Anyway, take care, TastyCakes ( talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure, go ahead. Wikipedia is stronger for the occasional weak-article purge, wouldn't you say? TastyCakes ( talk) 02:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello SmashTheState. Your name has been mentioned in a discussion at WP:Suspected sock puppets/MiltonP Ottawa. You are welcome to comment there. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, the irony of your new quote on your main page! They'll probably say your quoting someone about personal attacks is, in itself, a personal attack. Also, I am amused you focused on the "rude and confrontational" and ignored the "elegant". It is so much harder to take a compliment, than to enjoy the sting of an insult. -- Nik ( talk) 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello SmashTheState. I just wanted to drop a quick note to say I look forward to working on the Denis Rancourt article with you. Biographies of living persons are always tricky, so I want you to know that I have no agenda for or against him, you, his views, actions or anything even tangentially related to the subject. I simply desire to improve the article. Cheers. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 06:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello again SmashThe State. Its neither helpful nor conducive to writing when you call my edits "attacks" and that I'm doing a "hatchet job" on an article. Perhaps you could make some constructive comments instead? Thanks. Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 16:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

If you have a problem with how this article is being edited, then I invite you to bring it to the attention of the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Until then stop threatening and accusing editors of sabotage, attacks, and systematic bias. (Oh, and don't bother looking into whether or not I work for the University of Ottawa - I don't. Seriously, don't waste your time.) Letsgoridebikes ( talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Can I request that you remove the so-called 'definition' of Wikipedia from your userpage? It violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by a massive amount. If you do not remove it I will tag it as an attack page and request to have it deleted as such; the end result overall, really. Ironholds ( talk) 09:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

If you tag his definition as an attack, surely someone could also tag the criticisms of Wikipedia page as an attack as well. They're attacking Wikipedia! Terrible! Shame! Free speech is a funny thing -- if we want it, we even have to tolerate the people we disagree with. Or should I say, we especially have to tolerate the people we disagree with. It's also my understanding that user pages aren't really enforced as strongly as articles are. They're the playground where we have recess, next to the school. Occasionally the kids will get rowdy, but it's no big deal. That's my understanding, anyway. -- Nik ( talk) 12:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Free speech is one thing. It allows you to express your views on people in a civil way. Describing Wikipedia editors as "angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders" is not at all civil, and fails WP:NPA horribly. In addition the "criticisms of wikipedia" article is not a valid one to be comparing because we maintain different standards for userspace and mainspace. For the relevant policy on text like this in userspace please see point 10 of WP:UP#NOT; "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors". I'd say "angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders" counts as material that can be viewed as attacking other editors (all other editors, for instance). Ironholds ( talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It's his page, let him do as he likes with it. He isn't making specific personal attacks on his page (although he does elsewhere), and while it's obvious not very civil, it's not disrupting any "project" as the policy puts it. TastyCakes ( talk) 15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

By 'project' they mean Wikipedia. Which policy says it has to be 'disrupting the project' exactly? And specific isn't needed; saying 'all jews are rich stingy big-nosed bastards' isn't at any specific person but it sure as hell isn't acceptable either. Ironholds ( talk) 15:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmm I was referring to "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." I've seen my fair share of arguments involving SmashTheState, and I agree he can be borderline abusive on Wikipedia. If you want to go and collect the parts where he's been uncivil to other editors directly, I'm sure there will be no shortage of material and I'd be all for it. But his userpage is a criticism of Wikipedia, and while made in vicious, offensive language as you say, the argument of systematic bias is well known (and many agree with it, perhaps in a watered down form.) I think his page makes a flawed argument that strikes close to the bone for many reading it, and so it's considered offensive. If you have a problem with the user page, you have a problem with the kind of editor SmashTheState is, so by all means try and get him kicked off Wikipedia. But I don't think you should try and hide who he is by censoring his userpage. TastyCakes ( talk) 15:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I have a problem with the language he uses not the editor he is; nobody can be defined solely by the way they phrase things, nor do I think his mainspace contributions contain such language. The fact remains that it is as you say written in offensive and vicious language. Regardless he has edited after I posted the initial message so I will assume he saw it and nominate the thing for deletion. Ironholds ( talk) 15:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Well... Good luck TastyCakes ( talk) 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I find myself wanting to delete my Wiki account and never come back again. Wow, this place really is run by "angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders". -- Nik ( talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

...and thanks for making a personal attack. You can't delete your account, the best you can do is simply leave. Ironholds ( talk) 23:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you're seeing personal attacks where there are none. SmashTheState said Wikipedia is full of angry white geek males, basically. If you read the criticisms of Wikipedia pages, you'll see the exact same arguments being made. Many say the pages of Wikipedia reflect that the users are, for example, obsessed with Japanese cartoon characters, and not that interested in the history of France. It has been said over and over again. That you take SmashTheState's comments to be a personal attack (against whom, exactly?) indicates that you may be overly sensitive, or perhaps are simply unaware of the common criticisms that are out there. And my statement is no personal attack. I don't know you, personally. I'm trying to be logical here. Personally? I have a high tolerance for differing opinions. The admins of Wikipedia, it would appear, do not. -- Nik ( talk) 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Anyway, before I rush off to bed -- don't worry about what I have to say. I haven't made many edits and have no pull around here. In part, that's because I've noticed any of the articles that are slightly controversial usually get edited to a particular POV by the people who have a lot of free time on their hands. Much like Usenet in the old days, victory goes to the person without a full time job who has an axe to grind. And no, Ironholds, that's not a personal attack against you. Just an observation. I've tried, for example, to edit one article to reflect the facts, only to have someone edit it, and edit it, and edit it all away. And I gave up. Because they have the time to waste and I don't. These little posts I made today? Just a little flurry of thought on my part. I probably will forget all about it and not be back for a week or two. That's just how it goes. No hard feelings, and goodnight. -- Nik ( talk) 03:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

User:SmashTheState, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SmashTheState and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SmashTheState during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ironholds ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. To contest this block, please email me or place {{unblock|your reason here}} on your page, including an explanation why you feel you should be unblocked. Several problems have been identified here; your problematic username, your confrontational attitude, the aggressive and attacking nature of your user page, but these are of a lesser degree than things like this [1]; such summaries are simply unacceptable. We do have a small number of genuinely valuable contributors who appear, make opinionated edits like yours to contentious subjects, and then learn our policies and reform, but your user page and the length of time you've been around suggests to me that you are not really that interested in a collegial project to document subjects in a neutral way, but rather in reshaping our content to reflect your world view. The block is pending some credible explanation of your rather odd behaviour, and some means of ensuring that the opinionated edits to content, and the attacks on others, will not recur. Guy ( Help!) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honour you can bestow on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself." -- Joseph Sobran

I have nominated Solidarity unionism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity unionism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy ( Help!) 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd suggest that a gesture that you're actually interested in creating and improving articles would be to post here, while your block issue is discussed, an improved version of this article. If you check the AfD (linked at the top of the article), you'll find one editor found a stack of possible sources for expanding the article. That demonstration that you're not just here for the LOLZ and drahmahz would help a lot of editors support you being unblocked. ThuranX ( talk) 03:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Why? The only statement I need make is about the factuality of what I wrote, and Guy has already made it for me through his actions. It's well known that Guy is Jimbo Wales' Éminence grise. I sinned against Ayn Rand and Objectivism, so now I will be punished for it. Your mistake, and his, is in believing that preventing me from contributing my expertise -- and it is considerable in my field -- is some sort of great punishment to me. To quote Henry David Thoreau from Civil Disobedience, after they tossed him in jail for refusing to pay taxes to a State which condoned slavery, "They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are under-bred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. [...] I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it." -- SmashTheState ( talk) 04:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

LOL! That's really funny. I will tell Jimbo about it, if I ever meet or talk with him. Guy ( Help!) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Blocking someone, then AfD'ing an article they wrote is pretty low behaviour, though not below Guy's normal standard. To message him that he is welcome to contribute to the AfD after preventing him doing just that is a very low blow indeed. DuncanHill ( talk) 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, it is downright dishonest of Guy to post that AfD message, as Guy knew full well that SmashTheState cannot either edit the article or contribute to the debate. DuncanHill ( talk) 03:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

If SmashTheState wants to leave a comment here to be placed in the AfD, it is possible there could be a way consistent with policy to make his views known in the AfD discussion. (Even just a link from there over to here might be OK). EdJohnston ( talk) 04:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

If Guy had any interest at all in treating either this editor or the article fairly he would have set something like that up. A truly bizarre block rationale, followed by a dodgy nomination for deletion, unsurprising from Guy but not acceptable behaviour. DuncanHill ( talk) 04:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

STS, so on a single day, after minding your own business for three years, your user page was nominated for deletion, you were blocked indefinitely (your first block) and the blocking admin helpfully also nominated an article you created for deletion, inviting you to participate in the deletion discussion but you can't participate in the deletion discussion because you're blocked. (Did I get everything right? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Nice WP:ABF, Duncan - you might want to look at the code of Twinkle some time, which completely explains the talk page notification without any need to resort to ill-intent and vindictiveness. Guy ( Help!) 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

AGF isn't a suicide pact. If you knew that Twinkle would produce an inappropriate message, then using it was improper. You certainly ought to know that by now. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

As a free-market hardliner I could hardly be more opposed to your political views. Yet allow me please to express my support in your present Wikiquandary. I find that it helps to "laugh at the frozen rain" and the absurdity of it all, as Steely Dan sing in their song Bad Sneakers. Cheers, -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 11:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, it all occured in the space of about six hours, while I was busy doing meatspace things. I saw someone become annoyed at my user page, logged off, and came back to discover thunder and lightning in full orchestra, fat Italians singing, and Valkyries wheeling overhead while Valhalla burned. Incidentally, you may also find that we're not as different politically as you may think. I'm all for a free market. I only object to a free market in the absence of free human beings. See participatory economics. Thanks for your words of support, anyway; I'm phlegmatic enough to know that this, too, shall pass. -- SmashTheState ( talk) 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Your habit of referring to American-style Libertarians as "Randroids" or "Objectivists" is inaccurate, however; although many of us did indeed go through a Randian phase at some point in our formative years, most of us got over it eventually after realizing the cultishness and repressiveness of "official" Randianism (complete with excommunications and banned books) and went on to libertarianism (which was strongly denounced by Rand along with anarchism). *Dan T.* ( talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there...Based on consensus at AN/I, as well as a look at your contributions, I've unblocked you. I'd like to suggest, politely, that maybe it would be in your best interests here to either tone down your rhetoric on, or flat-out stay away from, all things Randian--but it's only a suggestion and you can make of it what you will. I can't promise your userpage won't get deleted, but at least you have an option to speak on it now. And one more friendly request: now that you can edit again, please, please don't make a complete ass of me by turning into some ranting troll-vandal on a vengeful rampage through Wikipedia. I think you have a right to be irked, mind you, but just for myself I'd appreciate it if you stayed calm in the face of it. (Not happy-smiley calm--just not-killing-anyone calm would be fine. Thanks... GJC 15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your sanity. It's a commodity around here on Wikipedia. You may want to consider keeping your head down yourself for a while. Thwarting the Nietzschean Will of certain objectively-minded cetaceans isn't healthy in these parts, if you catch my meaning. SmashTheState ( talk) 16:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Seconded - you have my entire and undivided support in purging this enterprise of Rand-related crap, but there is an appropriate way to do this. Guy is not so bad. Peter Damian ( talk) 16:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• SmashTheState, I am sorry for the drama this has caused, my concern was (and is) for the integrity of the project. I am very concerned by edits such as the one I highlighted above. Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an extremely contentious subject, and provocative edits with provocative edit summaries fomr people with provocative user pages who have been making provocative statements in content and on discussions from the very outset, really are not acceptable. I will leave it to others to watch this going forward, but I really am quite sincere in saying that I believe your edits - however much I might sympathise with them privately - are very often inappropriate and confrontational. It's fine to be outspoken in project space, but not, please, in content. Guy ( Help!) 16:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. You aren't sorry you did it, you're sorry you got caught, and that it bothered enough people for them to counter-act your work. I had a look through some of the material about you and your history on Wikipedia Review, and from what I can see, dirty pool is your game of choice. You have a reputation for being Jimbo's hatchet-man, particularly in cases involving Ayn Rand. I am a well-known and very experienced activist, and you may rest assured that neither you nor Jimbo has intimidated me. If, as you claim, this is all an innocent misunderstanding, then you should be pleased that I have not been frightened away from editing by "ban chill," and that I am pleased to continue contributing my expertise and viewpoint to the Ayn Rand article. -- SmashTheState ( talk) 11:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Welcome back, SmashTheState. I'm sure you are thrilled to once again be a part of an exciting and blah blah blah. My sarcasm has failed me. Three cheers and etc. I'm up past my bedtime, having just watched three movies and had several beers, some gin, some sherry, and a lot of miniature donuts. -- Nik ( talk) 06:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Castles crumbled, dragons were slain, damsels rescued, and many and wondrous were the swan rapes committed. Such an adventure has not been seen on Wikipedia in entire seconds. I am suitably awed, cowed, and/or inspired. -- SmashTheState ( talk) 11:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I liked the part where the admin who unblocked you allowed you the "right to be irked". God forbid you have any emotions not previously screened by an authority figure. (Oh, I kid, admins. I kid.) No wonder some perceive your very user name as a threat -- SmashTheState? But Wikipedia Admins ARE the state! How strange. I used to, quite without irony, perceive Wikipedia as a sort of socialist, anarchist system in which the doors are open and anyone may edit an article. Is Wikipedia the real story of what an anarchist state would look like? Much like the Soviets claimed to have a worker's paradise, but those in power were bloated with corruption. Just a thought. (See, admins? I disrespected you, AND also disrespected Smash and anarchy! I'm a loose cannon!) -- Nik ( talk) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Man, it's amazing how some people take umbrage at other people's support. "I think you have a right to be irked" = "I agree with SmashTheState that this whole situation sucked, and would sympathize on some level if he DID choose to turn into Super-Asshole about it", not "This request to express emotions has been approved; please submit the required forms in triplicate." But then again, what should one expect from somebody who eats donuts with gin?? Cripes, man, haven't you ever heard of a lime???? (:::good thing nobody knows that my first drinking experience, in sixth grade, was beer mixed with orange Kool-Aid...wait...aw, crap.:::) GJC 01:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You eat doughnuts with a lime? DuncanHill ( talk) 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Miniature donuts in a sea of gin / keep the demons from getting in. / Or do I have it in reverse / and this recipe just makes things worse? / I suppose the demons don't really matter / so long as I get drunk and only slightly fatter. -- Nik ( talk) 02:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

DuncanHill: Only the gin-flavored ones. (The degree of forebearance required for me to resist the temptation to comment on "donut" vs. "doughnut", and the level of amusement generated by this thought being brought about through the comment of a contributor named "Duncan", can only be imagined.) GJC 03:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

They're made of dough, not of do. And my Scouts got there long before you with the "popular fried snack vendor" joke :) DuncanHill ( talk) 03:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I feel your pain--I used to teach middle school, and suffice to say that my RL last name is exceedingly vulnerable to pun-stership, of the "no, I hadn't heard that one...except for those FORTY THOUSAND TIMES BY MY SIXTH BIRTHDAY..." variety. Now. About those d*nuts....

Hey, SmashTheState! See what you started by getting blocked?? <evil grin> GJC 03:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

A nut is (amongst other things) a small biscuit or round cake (ask any good dictionary). DuncanHill ( talk) 03:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you were unblocked. I've been reading your comments at Ayn Rand. You are superior to all your opponents, combined. Please don't get yourself permanently blocked. It's possible to do good work while jumping through their hoops and playing their games -- unnecessarily complicated, and infuriating, but possible. It would be a great loss to the project if you were purged. -- 71.241.206.81 ( talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Congratulations, Andrew! Your battle with Guy has attracted the attention of the Wikipedia Review! The appropriate thread is here. We strongly encourage you to participate on WR, which is a popular meeting-place for disgruntled Wikipedians and ex-Wikipedians. You can speak more freely about Wikipedia's problems there, and its archive contain massive amounts of documentation of past Wikipedia disasters and censorship since 2006. Hope to see you soon! 76.191.202.13 ( talk) 23:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You have reverted 4 times now on Denis Rancourt. Please don't repeatedly revert. It can lead to blocks. Please discuss the matter in more detail. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:3RR does not apply to potentially libelous material, per WP:BLP. And I quote, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Public expression of anti-semitism is a criminal offence in Canada. The statement (incorrectly) implying Rancourt is an anti-semite is an accusation of criminal behaviour, and will be removed every time it is added. -- SmashTheState ( talk) 19:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you think the statement is anti-semitic in nature? That's interesting because I didn't get that impression. In any event, the content is well-sourced. WP:BLP doesn't have us removed reliably sourced relevant content. Moreover, given that the statement has been reported in the Canadian press there's no way that removing it from here would make him any less guilty of a crime in Canada assuming he even is guilty of such a crime (which seems to be your own personal original research). In any event, Scott was one of the people who reverted you. He's one of the strictest people on BLP issues on the entire project so that should alert you that you might just maybe be wrong here. If you do revert again, you will be blocked. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Regarding your fairly rude remark on my talk page: I don't read French well and the link given isn't searchable text either so I'll take your word for it that it contains somewhere in it the relevant retraction(in the future, at least giving page numbers would be nice). Now, taking that as an assumption:

First, you might want to learn how to use the history button on pages. And then point me to where I ever made an edit adding anything about a claimed "Jewish lobby" . Let's see all the edits I've made to that page.

1. . remove irrelevant phrase about radioactive material
2. . changing "Zionist" to "Israeli" based on a direct quote.
3. . restoring "Israel lobby" after your removal.
4. . removing part of the see also section since it is referenced in the article.
5. . moving the scientific research section so that it is the first subsection rather than the last.
6. . fixing manual of style issues.

In fact, the phrase was added with sourcing after my final edit to the page as can be seen here

I don't know where you got from that the idea that I ever had anything to do with adding the "Jewish lobby" phrase into the article. Maybe I supported such an edit on the article talk page? Oh wait, I've never made a single edit to the article talk page. Oops. The only logical explanations are 0) You've made an honest mistake 1) you've decided that since I've made other edits you don't like I must have made these edits as well or 2) have a problem yourself distinguishing between "Israeli" and "Jewish" and thus confused my adding the well sourced quote in about the Israel lobby with the incorrect statement about the Jewish lobby. Since 1 and 2 are most likely not the case, I presume that we are in situation zero and that therefore an apology or clarification from you to me will be arriving on my talk page shortly.

Moreover, if I had made such an edit, I'd have nothing to apologize for. Wikipedia works based on using reliable sources. The source in question was reliable. If a source then prints a retraction that's not our fault. Wikipedia as always relies on WP:V. If we have nothing but your personal say-so to take something out of an article that's not terribly helpful. It might possibly have made sense to have taken out such an edit per WP:BLP until such an issue could have been clarified, and if I had been paying more attention to the issue may very well have ended up deciding to do so. However, quoting otherwise reliable sources is not something we need to apologize for.

On an unrelated topic I noticed that you argued for deletion of QubeTV. I'm curious how you came by this discussion. Also, regarding that discussion, you wanted to delete the article since it is "poorly written" and "stubby." Aside from reminding you that neither of those are reasons to delete an article, I'm curious as the primary writer of said article what you found to be poor writing in that article. Points so I can improve both the article and my own writing in general are always appreciated. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Joshua, you helped keep negative information in a BLP that later proved to be wrong and defamatory. So, I can understand why you might feel a little defensive about that. Hopefully, we can all learn something from this episode, including not biting newbies who come in to tell us that we might not be correct in our assumptions. Cla68 ( talk) 23:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Or maybe you can go reread what I wrote above and then point to where I " helped keep negative information in a BLP that later proved to be wrong and defamatory" (you actually mean libelous not defamatory but that's a separate issue). JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Ahem. Cla68 ( talk) 00:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Read above. Everyone agrees the phrase "Israel lobby" is well-sourced. The issue in question is to the phrase "Jewish lobby" which was retracted by the source in question. Do you have trouble understanding the different between Israeli and Jewish? JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I've undeleted both the article on you and the union, with the former redirecting to the latter. If this causes any problems, let me know. Cheers,  Skomorokh  21:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Well! Talk of those I didn't expect to see back....welcome, indeed! GJC 01:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I've never really left in the same sense I was never really here. I make occasional improvements if something catches my eye, but Wikipedia as a whole remains mostly of negative interest to me where I keep an eye on it only so that I, and the organizations with which I am associated, don't get muckraked by my/our political enemies -- who appear to have a much higher opinion of the usefulness of Wikipedia. SmashTheState ( talk) 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry you feel that way, but your changes to the article were unsupported and unacceptable.
I'm afraid you'll have to provide examples of my insertion of "mean, muckraking demagoguery" if you want me to respond to it, I don't know what you're referring to. Do you not sense a bit of irony in that accusation, given that in the case of Georges Bedard it is you that is unabashedly engaged in muckracking, and you that's now having a little hissy fit because it didn't remain? If you really believe your changes presented the man in a neutral way, I don't really know what to tell you other than that you're wrong. You present facts on Wikipedia, not your opinion, and you don't slant the language of the article in such a way to try and turn the reader to your point of view, all concepts you either do not grasp or choose to ignore. On a wider note, I think any impartial observer would be excused in thinking that it's you that's a douchebag for your constant aggressiveness and uncivil behaviour. I think I have made my position quite clear: if you make edits that are any good I will leave them. If you make edits that are unsupported, hopelessly biased outlets of your transparent "activist rage" or whatever, then no I'm not going to leave them and nobody should. TastyCakes ( talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

RE:

As with so much of the rest of Wikipedia, this discussion has turned into another popularity contest among the nerd oligarchy which rules the land. Rather than any discussion of the ethical and legal basis for a decision ( | Kantian ethics dictate a solution most here will find unpalatable), people are blinded to everything but which of the narrow selection of views should be chosen from among Wikipedia's bourgeoisie with no regard for, you know, reality. The amount of Wikipedia traffic dedicated to bureaucracy has been increasing year by year, and the number of contributing editors has been imploding rapidly. Your project is sliding into Jimbo Wales' navel. As near as I can figure it, there is no reason for anyone to help you construct your BLP wikiality unless they want to score points with whichever Wikipedia mandarin's views they're supporting.

I am a veteran editor, and according to one study, I am an elite editor, but I never saw myself as part of the "nerd oligarchy" (just look at my block history), but maybe I am. I love the idea of wikipedia, but I fervently despise the way it is run. Every year it gets worse and worse.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		The Barnstar of Good Humor may be awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be. This barnstar is awarded to SmashTheState, who coined the yet to be written essay, Jimbo Wales' navel. Okip (formerly Ikip) 05:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comments :) Best wishes, I loved the quote. Okip.

Do you suggest I take your friend-making history as a model? Not that it really concerns you, but PhilthyBear made the first move in our troubled relationship some time ago. He left me that nasty note after I accused him of being a sock puppet, and indeed a checkuser showed he was using three accounts to try and bully people around. I'm not particularly concerned with making friends with such people, and I don't think my personality really plays into my distaste for them. TastyCakes ( talk) 01:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I've restored this list per deletion review. Useful tips how make useful lists can be found in Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia or in in this essay.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I prodded that article based on what I saw on it. Sourced back to a couple of her own websites, not much in the article to establish notability, not really any claim to notability. Her myspace link doesnt even work. There just isnt anything here to establish 3rd party coverage. Bonewah ( talk) 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Ill admit, I didn't do any non-internet searching on the subject, but I'm a bit cynical in that regard (Ive dealt with lots of BLPs that are nothing more than vanity pages for non-notable persons). In any event, someone else has tagged it with a 'major rewrite' notice, so you might consider helping that editor out, if the article is in any kind of decent shape when you are done, I wont AfD it. Bonewah ( talk) 20:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That's funny. Neo-cons keep telling me it's liberal.

Like all large organizations, Wikipedia has become just a little dysfunctional.

I'm always interested in reading what things go wrong on wikipedia, it's fun to try to fix them. It's slow going though. ;-)

-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I am actually a little amused that you would compare The Valley of Fear by Arthur Conan Doyle -- a Sherlock Holmes novel -- to trifling references from Family Guy and Pokemon. Not all popular culture is irrelevant or insignificant. Try to look at context. -- Magmagirl ( talk) 19:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

LOL -- on one hand you demand the removal of a pop culture section in the Pinkerton article, and then on the other, you make a huge list with "hundreds more to come!" Did you intend to be hilarious or was it coincidental? -- Magmagirl ( talk) 19:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You've convinced me. I was obviously wrong. We need to add even more pop culture references. I'm helping you find pop culture references for the article now. SmashTheState (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just the kind of mature attitude that thrills Wikipedians around the world! --Magmagirl (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A fine job with your pop culture references! You might want to create articles for all those red links, though. ;-) -- Magmagirl ( talk) 20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Les Stroud

Hi, you reported this article to the BLPN, what actually is the problem? is it false name addition, or just the addition of the children's correct names, you called the ip the Chad vandal - as per WP:VANDAL what is the vandalism? Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the explanation, the admin has added it to his watchlist as have I and after the months pending protection we can see where to go from there if its repeated, perhaps a rangeblock is possible to stop his antics, anyway, thanks for the detail. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, SmashTheState. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

UOJComm ( talk) 23:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi -- I've reverted your mass removal. I understand why you're pissed off, and I probably would be too, but removing all that material from the middle of discussions will make the archive incoherent. Note that when you submit material to Wikipedia, even on the Ref Desks, you are releasing it to the world and no longer have the right to control how it is used. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 05:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey, I just did this. Since you think that I am fellating him, and I suggested that working with you could be considered torture, I thought it might be a good time to turn this over to a third party! I hope we are still bros. Haha seriously tho nothing personal, STS. DBaba ( talk) 03:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, I agree with your comments at WP:BLPN that this issue affects Bradley Manning as well. In the real world, the consequences for him are far more severe. Feel free to dump a load of harsh political invective on my head as my reward for agreeing with you. However, please don't accuse me of being a "Randian" if you have any mercy. I don't think I could bear that particular form of humiliation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC) reply

You can criticize policy all you want. What you can't do is turn a policy discussion page into a soapboxing rant. We can't fix Magnotta. Assuming the murders would not have happened if we gave him his 15 minutes of fame is ludicrous on its very premise. By that argument, Jodie Foster should have dated John Hinckley, Jr. so he wouldn't have attempted to assassinate the President. It's a complete farce of an argument. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 12:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Please do not make edits to articles that have the effect of presenting opinions sourced to reliable sources as facts, as you did with this edit to Jeff Dunham. You've already been blocked before for disruptive editing; I suggest you not go down that route again. Nightscream ( talk) 19:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I have never been "blocked for disruptive editing." If you're going to post on my user page, you will assume good faith and remain civil. Thank you. - SmashTheState ( talk) 03:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The block that was imposed on your in February 2009 would indicate otherwise. As for good faith and civility, you have not established that I violated either of those policies. You made a clearly inappropriate edit here, and the warning I left you above because of it was perfectly civil. Please do not attempt to misdirect attention from the inappropriateness of that edit by attacking those who leave such warnings. Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 04:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply

That block - which as you will note was removed by another administrator after review - was applied by an administrator whose understanding of the rules of Wikipedia and basic courtesy were as flawed as your own. Your tone is rude, arrogant, and threatening. I do not care to have any further contact with you. Thank you. - SmashTheState ( talk) 04:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply

You have not established that my understanding of Wikipedia's rules is "flawed", much less that there is anything inappropriate about my "tone". My messages to you have been civil and appropriate, whereas the edit in question--which you appear to be avoiding talking about--was not. Avoid violating the site's policies with edits like that, and you won't have to worry about having further contact with me or other administrators. Continue making such edits, and dismissing the perfectly appropriate warnings that are the result of them, and you'll find that you have more contact with such administrators than you'll care for. Take care. Nightscream ( talk) 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Your passive-aggressive dick-waving is exactly the sort of penny-ante tinpot authoritarianism which makes Wikipedia such an unpleasant place to participate. I've already told you repeatedly that I don't wish to have any further discussion with you - repeatedly - yet you insist on having the last word, on my own user page no less. If anyone else but an administrator did that, they'd call it trolling, and they'd be right. I made a bold edit in good faith, which apparently gave you some kind of atomic wedgie. You reverted it, did some triumphant teabagging on my user page, and at this point your duty was over. Instead, here you are, still making vague threats and scary noises despite (or because of) my request that you shove off and stop trolling up my user page. You reverted my edit and did a crazed monkey dance over the body of your slain enemy. Since it's clearly a matter of supreme importance to you and experience has told me that Wikipedia articles belong to the person with the most intense OCD, I have not bothered and will not bother to reinstate the edit. Therefore you have no reason to be here on my user page trying to intimidate me with your awesome and terrifying authori-tay. Kindly go away. - SmashTheState ( talk) 18:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:TurtleMelody regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SmashTheState regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You were indefinitely blocked before, unblocked to participate in a discussion, and we forgot to reinstate the block. You're obviously here on a mission, but one which is not the same as ours, and I reckon people have had enough so I have reinstated the block. I count: disruptive editing, BLP violations, incivility, sockpuppetry, and generally just not getting it. Guy ( Help!) 04:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

No, JzG, you're lying. Again. The last time you tried this on, people called you on your behaviour. You were caught banning me without reason, and then tagging an article I had created for deletion in bad faith, then mocking me on my comment page to object, knowing you had just blocked me. You can't lie about this, because it's all still visible on this very talk page. I've made perhaps a dozen edits in the last year, most of them minor. I no longer have any active interest in Wikipedia. You're doing this because you're vindictive and you figure people have short memories. You should not have the power to ban people here, since you have amply demonstrated that you abuse the privilege. -- SmashTheState ( talk) 04:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

And that little outburst is supposed to improve your case? You need to take a long time away from here. Guy ( Help!) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SmashTheState ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I believe this block has been instigated as a matter of personal animus for having a previous block against me by the same administrator overturned. I believe this to be the case for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I've left my user page untouched, so that the entire text of the previous episode is visible. JzG claims that the removal of his block the last time was simply a temporary measure to allow me to participate in a discussion. This is not the case, as anyone can clearly see. The last time JzG applied a block (also of indefinite duration) he was criticized by everyone involved, including other administrators, most notably for immediately initiating a bad-faith deletion review of an article I had written, then mocking me on my user page to participate, knowing full well that he had just finished blocking me. Secondly, you can see from the checkuser review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SmashTheState that I am not a sockpuppet. My "crime" was to speak up in favour of a user who shares my view on the removal of fancruft from "trivia" and "in popular culture" sections in scholarly articles. Because this user and I have used the term "neckbeard" and over a period of years have an overlap of 6 articles, I was proclaimed to be a sockpuppet. My protest that I was not was taken as proof that I was. Any reasonable person can see the problem in a system where you're guilty 'because' you claim innocence. JzG's decision to institute an indefinite ban, to lie about the circumstances of the last ban (which he, himself, had made in violation of Wikipedia policy), and to arbitrarily declare me to be sockpuppet without even bothering with such unimportant matters as a checkuser, has left me little choice but to see his action as vindictive and vengeful. I ask that his actions be reviewed, that the block be lifted, and that he either recuse himself from any further actions against me - or be compelled to do so. EDIT: Very well, you may consider this my resignation from Wikipedia. You have proven to me that the corruption is now complete, from one end to the other. Apparently JzG may lie, fabricate, and take revenge upon anyone he wishes. I am not at all surprised by this, only that it's taken this long for the rot to set in. I predict that it will not take long for this talk page and my user page to be blanked to hide the evidence.

Decline reason:

There's consensus for your block on ANI, you have to address this. You are blocked not only for sockpuppetry (which looks plausible by the way) but also for blatant and aggressive incivility - you have to address this. Also, we don't act upon unblock requests that discuss other people's behaviour instead of their own. Max Semenik ( talk) 07:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Regardless of whether or not you are a sock, your clear determination to flaunt WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA every chance you get makes it clear you are not here to build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • (ec) Admin User:WereSpielChequers has unblocked User:SmashTheState on the basis that the CU determined that TurtleMelody was not his sock. I have requested that WSC review the ample evidence that STS is a generally disruptive editor and, further, one who was unblocked for a specific purpose (participating in an AfD) and then, through an oversight, never re-blocked once the AfD was completed. Further, the evidence is strong that if STS and TM are not socks, they are coordinating their editing off-wiki, since there is no other way to reasonable explain the overlap in their editing. I believe that WSC's unblock was based on too narrow a criteria, and that, given the scope of the evidence available, STS should be re-blocked by WSC. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I also agree with The Bushranger: this is not an editor who is here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Just so you know, blanking the talk and user page does not remove "evidence" from the page history. Everything that is posted to Wikipedia is recorded and can be viewed by anyone through the View History tab at the top of every page. The only time a page history is not visible is when a page is completely deleted and only admins have the buttons to do that and even then deleted pages are still visible to other admins and those with the required access. The same goes for revisions. Certain edits can be deleted from the history so only admins can view them. The criteria for a page to be deleted are faily narrow, unless your page is a blatant attack page or contains libelous material, then it needs to go through the appropriate discussion. i.e. Very few things that are saved to Wikipedia can be hidden. Blackmane ( talk) 09:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi SmashTheState, apologies if you are getting mixed messages here. MaxSem and looked at your case at the same time, came to opposite conclusions and so you were unlocked at the same time as your unblock request was declined. Since the Check User has cleared you of sockpuppetry I was willing to unblock and put your recent colourful descriptions of your fellow Wikipedians down to the stress of a false accusation. However after talking to MaxSem and others I've reinstated the block for the reduced reason of incivility rather than sockpuppetry. If you are prepared to commit to being civil in your discussions with other Wikipedians then we are prepared to lift the block. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Um, is it possible that User:TurtleMelody might be JzG's sock? Say what you will about User:SmashTheState's "civility," it seems JzG has a vendetta against STS going back a long time. That TurtleMelody happened to be making "disruptive" edits to STS-edited pages could just as easily be evidence that TM was running a false flag campaign on behalf of JzG to finally get rid of an antagonist. Bolwerk ( talk) 15:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I consider it unlikely considering StS and TM claimed to know each other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • That is one of the more fatuous accusations I have heard. You may apologise. Guy ( Help!) 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Since I'll never be editing Wikipedia again, I thought I'd add a few notes here for the benefit of the few people involved who aren't delusional. One day, I logged on to discover that I had been accused of being someone else and was facing being banned as a result. When I objected, instead of being banned for being someone else, I was banned for objecting. The person who did the banning had been carrying a grudge for literally years, having been caught trying to ban me for similar ludicrously and transparently self-serving reasons years earlier, only to have his malicious action overturned. In the years since he had been initially caught, the administrators who had cared one way or the other slowly dropped away as Wikipedia slid into its own navel. A larger and larger proportion of Wikipedia's dwindling contributions are being directed towards bureaucracy and petty politics. This is always the sign of a community rapid decline. I do not anticipate that Wikipedia will be relevant for much longer, though it may linger for decades as an increasingly toxic MMORPG for authoritarian sperglords.

The proof that this ban has nothing to do with my contributions and everything to do with my legitimate criticism of Wikipedia is that my user page (containing criticism of the systemic biases within Wikipedia and the noxious atmosphere within its community -- which had already survived one attempt at censorship through official channels) was gleefully blanked once I no longer had the power to fix it, complete with mocking "buh-bye" commentary.

Eric Hoffer wrote, "You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you." I never cared about Wikipedia; I came here because a blatantly libellous biography about me had sat untouched for months and only when it was corrected to make it factually correct, only then action was taken to have it removed on the basis of being a "non-notable" and a "vanity" article. In the years since that initial experience, nothing I've experienced has done anything to contradict my distaste with the bullying, authoritarian culture within Wikipedia, and serves to confirm my suspicions about the sort of society Randroids like Jimbo would like to foist on us. It is, however, telling that the worst punishment Wikipedia's brownshirt enforcers can think to enforce upon me is to prevent me from contributing to their project. If I was a troll and an agent provocateur, clearly I wouldn't care and, in any case, could easily create more accounts. I know several people who do just that. It's obvious that the people who want so desperately to silence me and my unthinkable criticism of the wildly dysfunctional culture within Wikipedia don't really think I'm a troll or a sock puppeteer or whatever other excuses they've dragged up for silencing me; it's that I infuriatingly refuse to consider it some kind of glorious reward to give free labour to Wikipedia.

It's an odd situation, to be forcefully barred from rowing the oars on a sinking ship, for the apparently inexcusable crime of noting that the ship is sinking. Even now, I suspect that this final commentary will be removed, because the presence of discordant voices inside the echo chamber of Wikipedia is intolerable, even when those voices are trying to draw attention to a problem which will ultimately destroy the very community which is providing the milieu in which the echo chamber ostensibly exists to protect. Some of the people involved clearly have a long and well-documented history of cognitive distortions which leave them largely unable to either control or be held morally culpable for their actions. It's not these people, the sadly delusional acolytes of Jimbo, to whom I address this, but the few remaining people within Wikipedia who have closed their eyes to what's occuring. I don't have any desire to be re-chained to the oars, so this isn't about shaming anyone into overturning the decision of the kangaroo court which silenced me on Wikipedia. This is about getting the more-or-less sane people to feel some sense of personal responsibility for refusing to either make the attempt to stand up to the bullies or remove themselves from the culture which fosters and supports the bullies.

-- SmashTheState ( talk) 02:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply