User talk:TheFourFreedoms

May 2009

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.--John (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

While I suspect you are yet another sock for one of the numerous banned editors, I'll assume good faith and leave you with some advice. If you wish to make any headway in your edits, do not call an article "treason against whole humanity". Regardless of how you feel, this is not the way to get your ideas across, and only increases the likelihood that you will be ignored, and even topic blocked.

Tread lightly, because you walk on ever crumbling ground. --Tarage (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Crumbling ground it is, you've said it well. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to say on this vote?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth#Suggest_merging

Wowest (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More specific

While some of your comments at AE911 show thoughtfulness, I believe almost all editors generally need to be reminded of the usefulness of a certain policy, namely WP:Words to Avoid (WP:avoid?). I think WP in its wisdom has recognized that word choices are inherently intertwined with fairness (npov), and this might be related to something insightful you are conveying. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Have you ever edited Wikipedia with any other accounts? Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whether as account, or more often as IP, I've made thousands of edits… Pretty proud of those… You know, very recently I've wrote letter to the administrator who helped me when I was forced out of community, I've asked him to 'unlock' my original page (which was locked on my request) so I may initiate ArbCom hearing which is due to begin for a very long time... There was no reply though, which is good in a way... Needless to say, I've gathered tremendous amount of well known 'evidence' in years passed. Such misconduct… Well, those were different times, in those times editor would be 'shot by the firing squad' without any reason whatsoever, I'm not exaggerating, few of us could survive, no matter how polite and thoughtful we strived to be. When I think about some of fellow editors who were banned by the clique... Tremendous lose for the project, most certainly... I'd say things are improving though… bit by bit, I've even gave up the idea about bringing out all the dirt. Waste of energy, me thinks, as community, we'll evolve, eventually… Heh, hope this encounter was insightful to you folks as each encounter we had, I honestly think we're learning much from various approaches we've experienced together. I still call it experiment though, and please, hold no grudge for that. That said, go ahead, do what you have to do, I'm tired of stealing time I could spent with my dearest anyway. :-) TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per a checkuser and obvious editing similarities[1], this account has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. If you're interested in talking with ArbCom/having your original account unblocked, please do so via email instead of creating alternate accounts. Shell ^babelfish 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]