User talk:68.108.118.13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. original vandalism to decolonialism Hmains 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 vandalism 2 POV statements 3 Edit Summary Request 4 vandalism 5 Decolonization 6 POV vandalism 7 blocked

[edit] vandalism

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. repeat vandalism to decolonialism Hmains 03:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What I did was removing a nonsense but which ofcourse you put back again. I thought the original nonsense was self evident but you could not see it ofcourse. I have edited this page again, this time with explanation for those who can not see straight away. 68.108.118.13

[edit] POV statements

Please read WP:NPOV and then discuss on the talk page before you make further changes. Thanks Hmains 16:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What I have done is not POV, but clearing out self evident nonsense. 68.108.118.13

1. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kukini 02:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wikipedia is going to block itself from Truth? 68.108.118.13

[edit] Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 02:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your technical comments. That will be of help. :) 68.108.118.13 Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 68.108.118.13). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. Kukini 02:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. what you doing can only be considered valdalism, and wasting our time. Hmains 03:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wikipedia is going to block itself from Truth? 68.108.118.13

[edit] Decolonization

If you wish to add information into the Decolonization article, please be sure that it is cited, verifiable, and written from a Neutral Point of View. If you need help with this, please comment on the talkpage as me on my discussion page.--Rockero 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What I have done is removing and clarifying some "self evident" nonsense that was circulated by wikipedia already. 68.108.118.13

What you are doing is adding nonsense. There is no way that the US could be considered an illegitimate nation. BioTube 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Read agian what I put in the article. It should be self evident. 68.108.118.13

What I see is nonsense by a guy who can't get over the fact that the sun has set on the British Empire. BioTube 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't put "self-evident" information into an article. It has to come from from a written source. If you can find a writer who has said that the U.S. is not a legitimate nation (I'm sure there are many), then add it to the article in their words. What you are adding and the way you are adding it makes it original research. Please do not keep adding in the same passage that has already been deemed inappropriate. Rather, take your conserns to the article's talkpage where the community can assess your concerns and help you get what you want included into the article. This is a community project that we are all working on and unilateral actions, especially controversial ones, are not looked upon kindly. If you continue to revert, you can be blocked for vandalism, so please, take it to the discussion page where we can work it out together. Thanks, --Rockero 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not lecture me. I have already told you that what I am doing was removing and clarifying a self evident nonsense that was already circulated by Wikipedia. Also do not keep on repeating that Wikipedia is going to block me. 68.108.118.13

Like I said, the only nonsense is what you put in there. The fact is that Britain lost the thirteen colonies and failed to regain any of them in the war of 1812. Fast forword a hundred years and we find that the US wields more power than Europe. Any claims of illegitimacy are just the empty cries of a long lost era. BioTube 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the information I put recently. Especially the quote about Bush's Asia Society speech. If America thinks (As Bush says) that it overcame colonialism to gain independence, then I would say that its vision of independence itself is under question mark. 68.108.118.13

It looks like Wikipedia is blocking me from editing the article on decolonization. I will wait for few days and see if wikipedia comes to sense and allows me to edit. If not then it just means Wikipedia has blocked itself from Truth :) 68.108.118.13

The truth? The truth is that the US has proved its legitmacy many times throughout the years. There were wars against just about every major European power, all of which were won(except for a stalemate or two). The fact is that without the USA Europe would look very different and probably be worse for it. BioTube 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I believe the dispute is not over whether Britain ever lost dominion over the thirteen colonies, which is an agreed-upon historical fact, but whether or not the U.S. can claim a "legitimately-decolonized" status, since the institutions of the newly-independent territories were set up not by the indigenous colonized people, but by colonists and their descendents themselves. The text that is repeatedly added to (not removed from) the article reads,

"There are some people (mainly Americans) who wishfully think and argue that USA was decolonized when it gained independence and acquired lands from the European powers in the 18th century. For example see the following quote from a previous version of this article: "From the late 18th century up through 19th century decolonization in the Americas occurred, beginning with American colonists' revolt against British rule in the present-day United States, and continuing through the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in Latin America." This is clearly a self evident nonsense. If a property gets stolen and then changed hands but still has not been returned to the original owner, will it be considered stolen or not? Probably this myth is circulated in order to justify USA as a legitimate nation.

The problem with this text is that it is unsourced and not written from a neutral point of view. We can have a debate about whether or not the U.S. is truly "decolonized", and whether or not to include it in the article and how. But we need to have that discussion in order to reach a consensus. The place to have that discussion is on the article's talkpage. I am addressing myself both to 68.108.118.13 and Biotube. Thanks for both of your cooperation.--Rockero 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia opened the Pandora's box a while ago. What use is now talking about neutral point of view, consensus etc 68.108.118.13

Amigo, you need to clearly articulate your concerns about the article's deficiencies on the talkpage. You need to explain what you think is lacking/incorrect, and suggest specific ways to improve it. If you keep on adding your content without discussion, you will be blocked for violating the 3rr rule. Please respect the rules around here. (P.S. can't you see that I'm trying to help you out here?)--Rockero 04:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How many times I have to keep repeating to you that what I am doing is correcting what Wikipedia sent to circulation already? Don't expect me to explain what should be self evident to you. And dont keep repeating that Wikipedia is gong to block me. If it ever does it again on filmsy pretexts like it did last time, then it just means Wikipedia has blocked itself from Truth 68.108.118.13

Your edits to Decolonization have been reverted. We strongly request that you read and understand WP:NPOV and WP:CITE before you make any further edits to this article. Continued edits in this vein will earn you a block from editing, both for violating policy against vandalism and against the three-revert rule. Thank you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV vandalism

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. What you doing is self evident only to yourself. This makes your work POV vandalism. Hmains 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has blocked me from editing again. This just means it has blocked itself from Truth :) 68.108.118.13

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Truly? -- 68.108.118.13

[edit] blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Decolonization. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Decolonization). -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has blocked me from editing again. The conclusion I see is that Wikipedia has some fundamental deficiency when it comes to expressing Truth. What this means is Wikipedia has effectively blocked itself from Truth :) 68.108.118.13

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Also note that you admittedly are violating WP:POINT—Wikipedia is not a soapbox. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? 68.108.118.13

Yes. If you have a problem with the policies that are necessary for an encyclopedia, then buy a domain, pay a webhost, and spout off all you want. It will not happen here. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what was Wikipedia doing when it was circulating for more than a year, the nonsense that America was decolonized when it got independence and acquired territories from the european powers? I guess all your rules will come into effect only when it is convenient for you? 68.108.118.13

If a reliable source is cited for the data, it stands. In the event of conflicting reliable sources, they all (if legitimate) should be presented, with citation, to maintain neutrality. Your edits failed multiple criteria (including WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:POINT, WP:3RR, WP:WEASEL, etc.) and you have pointedly ignored attempts to help you fix them, even to the point of referring to others' proper restorations as "vandalism". Please use your time while blocked to read and understand these policies, and why pushing a point of view may be fine for a personal website, but not an encyclopedia—and this applies to anyone pushing an opposing POV to the exclusion of all else (again, if legitimate). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I already told you that I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia has fundamental deficiency when it comes to expressing the Truth. So don't expect me to take Wikipedia seriously. What I see is on the surface Wikipedia is "one which anybody can edit" but in reality it is "one any body can edit only if it is convenient for us". So do not expect me to take Wikipedia contents seriously. 68.108.118.13

Then, don't expect to edit here. First, there is no such thing as "the Truth". Period. End of story. Second, pointing out someone else's deficiencies to excuse or even promote your own is the very attitude that creates the problem you lament in the first place. There's an old adage about biting off one's nose to spite one's face... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Take what I did as a test for Wikipedia and that Wikipedia has failed the test. 68.108.118.13

Quite the contrary: you failed. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, depends on its editors to find and correct deficiencies as they're left behind. Merely changing a deficiency to its polar opposite deficiency exacerbates the "problem". You could have chosen to be a productive editor and make things "right"; you chose instead the second of "two wrongs". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think the editor's have a special capacity to find and correct deficiency? 68.108.118.13

"Special capacity"? "[T]o find and correct deficiency" would, in a perfect world, be the motivation for every editor—since it's not, that's the motivation for the rest of us. Bottom line, you're now arguing for the sake of argument—either be productive and help those of us actually trying to build this encyclopedia, or move on. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You kept removing what I put in the article. So you must be thinking that you had a special ability than me to say repeatedly that what I was putting in the article was incorrect. 68.108.118.13

Which continues to indicate that you continue to fail to read those policies placed before you, several times, on this page. Since you seem to have some innate inability to click on links and read Wikipolicy, allow me to reproduce the following from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

This policy in a nutshell:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Pay special attention to the last sentence. "Special"? Not. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointing to something which you have not understood fully is samething as evasion. It means nothing. 68.108.118.13

You're right; I can't think of anything more evasive than your willful refusal to read, understand and/or follow policy. When your block expires, I'd suggest you work to fix POV rather than replace it with POV; otherwise, this block will not be your first. This lack of conversation is over. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I already said that Wikipedia has failed my test.So do not think I am waiting with bated breath for the block to expire. --- 68.108.118.13

Another thing I want to point out is that most of the various people who acted in concert to block me seems to be Americans and their bias is self evident. They allowed what was non sense but favorable to America go unchallenged for more than a year and when I edited it they challenged it immediately using various vacuous jargons (except a few ).---68.108.118.13

So I'm an American. I still know crap when I see it. What you keep saying is that the US is not at all a legitimate country, when the only thing that's debatable is whether decolinization technically took place. So get off your soapbox and start working with us to find a statement that's agreeable to all parties. BioTube 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see!! By your logic if somebody steals some one else's property then it belongs to the thief unless both the thief and the original owner agrees otherwise!! In any case I want to tell you that decolonization all over the world will be achieved fully whether some one agrees or not. The birth of the nuclear weapon is just for that purpose!! --- formerly 68.108.118.13

My logic is clear. All I see in you is somebody who seems to think that the world will listen to his crazy idea. Even with the internet I bet you can't find more than a hundred people who agree with you. BioTube 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

BioTube, I am sorry that I can not spend much more time on this, as these things should be self evident to you. If it is not then probably your passion for your nation is clouding your sight. ---- formerly 68.108.118.13

I think the factt hat no one's come to defend you otta be a clue that your 'self-evident truth' is nothing but self evident bologna. BioTube 21:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

People may not speak out due to fear or because of selfishness or due to so many other reasons (Haven't you heard about the story of the child and the naked emperror?). So do not give that as a support for your argument. In any case as I already said it is mostly some Americans with inherent bias who tried to argue against me and who colluded to block me from editing (thereby exposing the true nature of wikipedia clear to me).Or are you saying (like Bush) that the world is with you :)? In any case the days of stealing some body else's land and thinking that there will not be any retaliation are over. I think that was already on the minds of the scientists when they witnessed the first atomic explosion. -- formerly 68.108.118.13

Let's see... First you get this crazy notion that the US shouldn't exist(going so far as to call it a bastard nation), then you try and put it in a wiki widely considered to be fairly authoritative. When people come in and try to remove your blatant nonsense to preserve this encyclopedia's good name, you call it a conspiracy and claim that there are many more like you that are simply afraid to speak up. Real convincing, especially since that the current article states a similar idea to yours, but less insulting and states the facts rather than some genuine bs. The United States has over the years proven its right to be here many times. If you've got nothing to do but insult the most powerful nation in the world, then try taking up a hobby, like model plane building. BioTube 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see..First wikipedia puts up a total nonsense that USA wes decolonized long time back. I then corrected this non sense by removing it. Then I was told that it was vandalism. Since people may not understood why it was removed I added clear explanation. Then a bunch of Americans tried to remove it acting in concert. Since I was not budging they finally acted in concert to block me. Whatever that is there now is some kind of a trial baloon which will be removed at the convenience of the editors whenever they think its purpose is achieved. Wikipedia was of some value previously because it said that anybody can edit and so people thought that it may contain some ideas which was not present in established encylopaedias, but once it started editing and blocking (especiall with American bias )its value is over. As far as USA-The most powerful nation- you are entitled to wallow in your own ignorance -- formerly 68.108.118.13

You were banned because you continulessly vandilized the page. If you can't udnerstand your own nonsense, then let's look at it step by step:

"There are some people (mainly Americans) who wishfully think and argue that USA was decolonized when it gained independence and acquired lands from the European powers in the 18th century."

First off, you provide no source for the claim that most of the world considers the US as a colony. Of course, finding a source would be impossible as this is not the case. I doubt that many countries would reconize a nation that they considered a colony.

"This is clearly a self evident nonsense. If a property gets stolen and then changed hands but still has not been returned to the original owner, will it be considered stolen or not? Probably this myth is circulated in order to justify USA as a legitimate nation"

First, you claim that the quote is 'self evident nonsense', not the kind of text used in any encyclopedia. Second, you show a complete lack of understanding how the territory of nation states work. If I wanted to I could probably find several examples of territory that's switched hands several times over the years but still have not been returned to the original owner. Lastly, the legitimacy of the US is questioned by no one. Like I've said several times, the only question is just whether the country can be considered decolonized. This is the type of debate that academic circles love, but in the end have no bearing on anything. BioTube 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if nations officially recognise some other entity as nation or not. Most of the nations act slefishly calling their national interest is paramount. Many of them are also vulnerable to power play and bribe. But Truth is Truth. As far as "self evident" things are considered some are of such nature. I know that some times dictionaries use circular definitons to get around the problem. But as a human you should be able to see self evident things. --- formerly 68.108.118.13

It does matter if nations officially reconize another entity as a nation. And first party interest are almost always viewed as paramount. This is natural human behavior; don't act like its unnatural. And I can see self evident things. You are the one who's having problems seeing the truth. BioTube 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line is this: Nuclear weapons have taken birth. Any nation which has usurped any body else's property under what ever pretext will be history :) -- formerly 68.108.118.13

Really? It hasn't happened. And I doubt it will. Due to the fallout, nukes aren't something that are used for anything but the best reason. BioTube 05:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

BioTube, I am somewhat disappointed with you. You have called me a crazy guy in some other page while giving an impression that I started this recent thread, whereas you are the one who started it now and I responded back. That aside, it seems to me that you are blissfully ignorant of the full implications of the dawn of the nuclear age. There are nuclear weapons and there are nuclear weapons. The nukes can be used for decolonization purposes --- formerly 68.108.118.13

You started all this by vandalizing the decolonization article. And I do know the implication of the nuclear age. I also know that just about everyone's signed the NNPT. BioTube 06:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

BioTube, I think you should clear things by admitting that you restarted the thread and not me. That at least should be self evident to you :) Also calling me "crazy guy" is not a good idea. Now, what the dawn of the nuclear age means is that the days of fighting with gun, planes, ships and even missiles is over. So if somebody has usurped some body else's property with these kinds of things then it is time to realize that it was all a big mistake and that it is time to return the usurped item. As far as NPT is concerned , do not think it is of any advantage to USA. It is quite the opposite of that.

---

formerly 68.108.118.13

If the world were as you claim it is, then nuclear war wouldn't be so taboo. And if the days of fighting with gun, planes, ships and missles are over, then war itself is essentially over because there'd be no way to deliver nukes. And I don't think of the NNPT as an advantage to anyone, but simply as what it is: a device to slow the spread of nuclear weapons. BioTube 19:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

BioTube, You don't seem to get it. There is no such thing as taboo when it comes to power play. The nuclear nations (at least most of them) use nuclear blackmail to project power. How and when the nuke will be delivered are all part of their blackmail. It will be incalculable to the other side. Now let us come to the core of what I have been saying. It is this: The days of usurping other's property thinking the other guy will not be able to retaliate is over. The best option is to return the stolen good and promise to behave. If not then it is time to face the nuclear fire. --- formerly 68.108.118.13

BioTube, I just want to add a comment on your addition to the article. You wrote "However, over the years it has developed its own culture, separate from that of Britain.". My comment is this: USA overthrows the monarchy in Britain, Its claim to be an independent power itself is an illusion. ---formerly 68.108.118.13

I've this to say to you: WP:TIGERS. BioTube 23:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

BioTube, I meant to say "Unless USA overthrows the monarchy in Britain, Its claim to be an independent power itself is an illusion." ---formerly 68.108.118.13

By that logic, India isn't a independent power since it didn't overthrow the British monarchy. BioTube 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What does India have to do with this topic here? Are you saying that the descendents of British are still controlling India? While there are some I am not sure India has that many of them. But I do agree with you that the decolonization in the world is not complete yet. Sure, some of the colonial masters retreated to thier land, but the world power is not totally distributed yet. I think that is the job of the nuclear weapons-- to bring about world power equality ---formerly 68.108.118.13

I simply responded to what you said. You claimed that in order to be an independent power, a nation must overthrow the government that controlled it. BioTube 20:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Biotube, My point was that the descendents of the British, who formed the USA claiming independence from Britain, can not really claim they have overcome British monarchy unless they overthrow the monarchy in Britain. Also I noticed that you are trying to get me to read some Wikipedia stuff. I have already indicated that wikipedia has blocked itself from Truth. So me reading some wikipedia stuff, will not change anything :) ----formerly 68.108.118.13

BioTube, I thought that I can share this info a person told me ,with you: We see that some people call the British leader derisively as the poodle of America, but that may not be true. The fact may be USA was never independent of Britain. Just like in Animal Farm the pig Napoleon sent some puppies to be reared seperately for some use later, USA was raised seperately by Britain, to function as its attack dog at a later time.----formerly 68.108.118.13

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]