User talk:Andrew Zito
Go feel /fill up your own pages with that garbage and dont delete my comments there then maybe comment here by you would be respectful.
Pubic Dominus Electus Erectus
Image:Jules dassin 07.jpg[edit]
Greetings. I have listed Image:Jules dassin 07.jpg on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion because it has no source or licensing information, and it's not listed in any articles. If you would like this image to be kept, please add source and licensing information, and include it in an article. If you need any help with this, just ask me. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 22:22, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that you have this category on your user page. This category has been moved and renamed to Category:Berklee College of Music alumni. This category is reserved for articles in the namespace, namely for articles of notable alumni of Berklee College of Music who meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC and/or WP:BIO. However, I would like to create Category:Wikipedians who are Berklee College of Music alumni (I am one myself, but am not notable enough for an article in the namespace) and move the Berklee alumni category there. Would you like to help me with this endeavor? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Malber (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
Wiki used in the same conjunction with love is an OXYMORON LIKE YOU --Andrew Zito 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comments on Abraham Lincoln Brigade "talk" page[edit]
Just a suggestion: comments WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS are the written equivalent of SHOUTING, make you look like a crank, and will probably result in your comments being completely ignored.
Like I said, just a suggestion, which you are free to take or ignore. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I RESENT THE INSINUATION THAT WRITING IN CAPS IS EQUILAVENT TO SHOUTING IF FIND IT EASIER TO WRITE AND SEE TEXT IN CAPS, AND THAT SOME CAN DICTATE SUCH ARBITRARY STANDARDS CAPS ARE GREAT THEY ARE CLEAR AND EASY TO SEE! NOW SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN BRIGADE VETS RECOGNITION AND BENEFITS LIKE ALL OTHER US VETS <spammylinkremoved> --Andrew Zito 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Night of the Long Knives, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. ROASTYTOAST 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I removed your comment because a discussion goes on the talk page or as a hidden comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roastytoast (talk • contribs) 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Your edit to Sturmabteilung[edit]
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Sturmabteilung. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Clyde (a.k.a Mystytopia) 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
SCREW YOU AND WIKIPEDIA I WILL BLOG IT ON MY OWN SITES AND TELL THE WORLD WHAT IDIOTS YOU ARE--Andrew Zito 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Block[edit]
-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Andrew Zito (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The argument against WIKIPEDIA
WIKIPEDIA CONTRADICTS ITSELF - NAZI HOMOSEXUALS by Andrew Stergiou
Wikipedia has articles on the NAZI Brown Shirts, the Brown Shirt leader Rohm, and the Night of the Long Knives (when Hitler at the bequest of his banker financers slaughtered his Brown shirts competitors) those articles for some time contradicted each other in that Wikipedia asserted that Rohm was both rumored to be homosexual and was a homosexual in variance of their fabrication of history with the presentation of different facts.
But what can you expect from a bunch founded by a group founded by a smut peddler based on so called Libertarian bureaucrats as: Libertarians are some of the worse abusers of civil liberties are Libertarians as on one hand they demand we live up to they standard of allowing them freedom, but must suffer their imposition of a schizophrenic crazed logic in order to get to where they dictate we should get to.
I entered the Theism vs Atheism another so called liberal chat room, and entered into communication in what suffices there for intelligent discourse to be confronted with demagoguery that al that conversation comprises. To my bitter disappointed I was dragged into posting messages in response to a brainless twits that could not find it in their manner to get any real facts into their postings by their insisting that Christians=Anti-Gay=Nazi because they said Nazis were all anti-gay.
At some point surrounded by a group of vicious ignorant trolls their words hung on GAYS GOOD, NAZI BAD. GAYS GOOD, CHRISTAINS BAD and I was forced (though I am a minority of one and not a Christian persay) to defend once again those dumb Christians though they have much greater resources than I:
Namely because use of what I found as baseless, ill founded, “heathen” stereotypes in lies, presented as truths, abhorrent so as to offend the common standards of decency so as to be offensive to any rational mind.
Not all Christians are anti-Gay, nor reactionary, nor do all Christians and Blacks vote for George W. Bush, reactionaries, the Democratic Party, nor are all Gays freedom loving progressives. In fact not all members of groups targeted by some as victims are free of guilt, as if they had nothing to do with those victimizers.
Ever since World War Two, Quisling (footnote 1.) has been a word in the public lexicon and vocabulary of intelligence, and Rohm and the Brown shirt leadership were just those types of Quisling traitiors because Rohm and the Brownshirt leadership was GAY (Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay)
BY checking the Wikipedia article on “the Brown shirts”:
“Röhm (leader of the brownshirts Ernst Röhm (1931 – 1934) was unpopular in the party because others saw his ambition as threatening their own, and because he was rumored to be homosexual.”
Wikipedia later in their posting regarding “the night of the Long Knives”
And that:
“However, Röhm was homosexual, *** he was one of the first members of the Nazi Party ***
- Some leaders of the Nazi party also joined in the dislike that many conservative officers expressed over Röhm's overt sexual orientation and some other SA leaders. They demanded that Röhm and others either be tried and executed or killed without trial *** Many people in the party also disapproved of the fact that Röhm and many other leaders of the SA were homosexuals.”
BOLDLY THESE TWO PRECEDING WIKIPEDIA references contradict each other BUT WHO CARES FOR TRUTH IN THIS AGE OF INTERNET FABRICATION WHEN WIKIPEDIA CAN DO IT FOR US AND THEN LAUNDER THE FACTS THRU ITS LEGALISTIC SYSTEM OF BUREAUCRATS WHILE THEY REMAIN ABOVE IT ALL BY CLAIMING TO BE FREE LOVING SPIRITS.
But who cares if we mince the truth?
I pointed out those articles contradictions in writing:
(EDITORIAL NOTE: THESE TWO PRECEDING SECTIONS STATING THAT THE LEADERSHIP WAS HOMOSEXUAL CONTRADICTS THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON THE BROWN SHIRTS WHICH STATES MERELY ROHM WAS RUMORED TO BE HOMOSEXUAL)--Andrew Zito 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
While reading the article, I had stumbled upon this in the History section: :"Röhm was unpopular in the party because others saw his ambition as threatening their own, and because he was a homosexual." Although I was slightly amused by the "and because he was a homosexual" statement, unless there is a verifiable source for this, it should be removed. 68.106.55.187 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Ahh, I guess I'm wrong. :) -- 68.106.55.187 06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
As my reward I was censored, blocked, and Wikipedia redacted my corrections and reverted them to maintain the lies and myths Wikipedia perpetuates in what appears to be presented as a cover for Nazi Activity on Wikipedia so as to preserve the Nazi image.
“Konrad Heiden, a contemporary of Hitler and a leading authority on Nazi history, wrote that the Freikorps "were breeding places of perversion" and that "Rossbach's troop...was especially proud" of being homosexual (Heiden: 295). Rossbach's adjutant was Edmund Heines, noted for his ability to procure boys for sexual orgies. Ernst Roehm, recruited by Rossbach into homosexuality, later commanded the Storm Troopers for the Nazis, where they were more commonly known as the SA (an acronym for Sturmabteilung).”
In my own defense I refer to “Homosexuality and the Nazi Party by Scott Lively” (Scott Lively is co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party (Keizer, Oregon: Founders Publishing Company, 1995). The Pink Swastika is not available through Leadership U., but is available by calling Jeremiah Films at 1-800-828-2290. and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, author William (Footnote2.)
I STRONGLY URGE THAT WIKIPEDIA BE FINANCIALLY NOT BE CONTRIBUTED TO AND THAT COCERTED EFFORTS BE MADE (if possible) it undermine its tainted existence that is perpetuated on lie deceit and historical revisionism.
Andrew Stergiou
(Footnote1.)
Quisling, became a label was conceived in remembrance after Norwegian fascist politician Vidkun Quisling, as a term used to describe traitors and collaborationists. It was most commonly used for fascist political parties and military and paramilitary forces in occupied Allied countries which collaborated with Axis occupiers in World War II Europe, as well as for their members and other collaborators.
That Quisling's name should be applied to denote the whole phenomenon of collaborationism is probably due to the place of Norway on the list of countries occupied by the Third Reich. There were few Polish collaborators, other than the Volksdeutsche, and Denmark fell within a few hours. Thus, Norway was the first country where local, non-German, fascist parties took a part in the conquest of the country. In contemporary usage, "Quisling" is synonymous with "traitor", and particularly applied to politicians who appear to favor the interests of other nations or cultures over their own.
(Footnote1.)
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party by Scott Lively
Scott Lively is co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party (Keizer, Oregon: Founders Publishing Company, 1995). The Pink Swastika is not available through Leadership U., but is available by calling Jeremiah Films at 1-800-828-2290.
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, author William Shirer describes Roehm as "a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar- faced professional soldier...[and] like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual" (Shirer:64). Rector writes:
Was not the most outstanding, most notorious, of all homosexuals the celebrated Nazi leader Ernst Ro[e]hm, the virile and manly chief of the SA, the du buddy of Adolf Hitler from the beginning of his political career? Hitler's rise had in fact depended upon Ro[e]hm and everyone knew it. Ro[e]hm's gay fun and games were certainly no secret; his amorous forays to gay bars and gay Turkish baths were riotous. Whatever anti-homosexual sentiments may have been expressed by straight Nazis were more than offset by the reality of highly visible, spectacular, gay-loving Ro[e]hm. If there were occasional ominous rumblings and grumblings about "all those queers" in the SA and Movement, and some anti-gay flare-ups, homosexual Nazis felt more-or-less secure in the lap of the Party. After all, the National Socialist Party member who wielded the greatest power aside from Hitler was Ro[e]hm (Rector:50f).
Betraying his roots in the "Butch" faction of the German "gay rights" movement, Roehm viewed homosexuality as the basis for a new society. Louis Snyder writes that Roehm "projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behavior pattern of high repute...he flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted that his cronies do the same. What was needed, Roehm believed, was a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals" (Snyder:55). "The principle function of this army-like organization," writes historian Thomas Fuchs, "was beating up anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals" (Fuchs:48f).
The favorite meeting place of the SA was a "gay" bar in Munich called the Bratwurstglockl where Roehm kept a reserved table (Hohne:82). This was the same tavern where some of the earliest formative meetings of the Nazi Party had been held (Rector:69). At the Bratwurstglockl, Roehm and associates-Edmund Heines, Karl Ernst, Ernst's partner Captain Rohrbein, Captain Petersdorf, Count Ernst Helldorf and the rest-would meet to plan and strategize. These were the men who orchestrated the Nazi campaign of intimidation and terror. All of them were homosexual (Heiden:3
Indeed, homosexuality was all that qualified many of these men for their positions in the SA. Heinrich Himmler would later complain of this: "Does it not constitute a danger to the Nazi movement if it can be said that Nazi leaders are chosen for sexual reasons?" (Gallo:57). Himmler was not so much opposed to homosexuality itself as to the fact that non- qualified people were given high rank based on their homosexual relations with Roehm and others. For example, SA Obergruppenfuhrer (Lieutenant General) Karl Ernst, a militant homosexual, had been a hotel doorman and a waiter before joining the SA. "Karl Ernst is not yet 35," writes Gallo, "he commands 250,000 men...he is simply a sadist, a common thug, transformed into a responsible official" (ibid.:50f).
This strange brand of nepotism was a hallmark of the SA. By 1933 the SA had grown far larger than the German army, yet the Vikingkorps (Officers' Corps) remained almost exclusively homosexual. "Roehm, as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troops," writes historian H.R. Knickerbocker, "had surrounded himself with a staff of perverts. His chiefs, men of rank of Gruppenfuhrer or Obergruppenfuhrer, commanding units of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, were almost without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual he had no chance of advancement" (Knickerbocker:55).
In the SA, the Community of the Special's Hellenic ideal of masculine homosexual supremacy and militarism was fully realized. "Theirs was a very masculine brand of homosexuality," writes homosexualist historian Alfred Rowse, "they lived in a male world, without women, a world of camps and marching, rallies and sports. They had their own relaxations, and the Munich SA became notorious on account of them" (Rowse:214). The similarity of the SA to Freidlander and Brand's dream of Hellenic revival is not coincidental. In Gay American History, Jonathan Katz writes that Roehm was a prominent member of the Society for Human Rights (SHR), an offshoot of the CS (J.Katz:632).
The "relaxations" to which Rowse refers were, of course, the homosexual activities (many of them pederastic) for which the SA and the CS were both famous. Hohne writes that Roehm "used the SA for ends other than the purely political...Peter Granninger, who had been one of Roehm's partners...and was now given cover in the SA Intelligence Section. For a monthly salary of 200 marks he kept Roehm supplied with new friends, his main hunting ground being Geisela High School Munich; from this school he recruited no fewer than eleven boys, whom he first tried out and then took to Roehm" (Hohne:82).
Hitler's "Gay" Roots
In 1945 a Jewish historian by the name of Samuel Igra published Germany's National Vice, which called homosexuality the "poisoned stream" that ran through the heart of Nazism. (In the 1920s and 30s, homosexuality was known as "the German vice" across Europe because of the debaucheries of the Weimar period.) Igra, who escaped Germany in 1939, claims that Hitler "had been a male prostitute in Vienna at the time of his sojourn there, from 1907 to 1912, and that he practiced the same calling in Munich from 1912 to 1914" (Igra:67). Desmond Seward, in Napoleon and Hitler, says Hitler is listed as a homosexual in Viennese police records (Seward:299). Lending credence to this is the fact, noted by Walter Langer, that during several of those years Hitler "chose to live in a Vienna flophouse known to be inhabited by many homosexuals" (Langer:192). Rector writes that, as a young man, Hitler was often called "der Schoen Adolf" (the handsome Adolf) and that later his looks "were also to some extent helpful in gaining big-money support from Ernst Ro[e]hm's circle of wealthy gay friends" (Rector:52).
Langer, a psychiatrist, was commissioned by the Allies in 1943 to prepare a thorough psychological study of Hitler. His report, kept under wraps for 29 years, was published in book form in 1972 as The Mind of Adolf Hitler. Langer writes that Hitler was certainly a coprophile (a person who is sexually aroused by human excrement) and may have practiced homosexuality as an adult. He cites the testimony of Hermann Rauschning, a former Hitler confidante who "reports that he has met two boys who claimed that they were Hitler's homosexual partners, but their testimony can hardly be taken at face value. More condemning," adds Langer, "would be the remarks dropped by [Albert] Foerster, the Danzig gauleiter, in conversation with Rauschning. Even here, however, the remarks deal only with Hitler's impotence as far as heterosexual relationships go, without actually implying that he indulges in homosexuality. It is probably true that Hitler calls Foerster 'Bubi,' which is a common nickname employed by homosexuals in addressing their partners. This alone is not adequate proof that he has actually indulged in homosexual practices with Foerster, who is known to be a homosexual" (Langer:178). However, writes Langer, "Even today, Hitler derives sexual pleasure from looking at men's bodies and associating with homosexuals" (Langer:179). Too, Hitler's greatest hero was Frederick the Great, a well-known homosexual (Garde:44).
Like Langer, Waite also hesitates to label Hitler a homosexual but cites substantial circumstantial evidence that he was.
It is true that Hitler was closely associated with Ernst Ro[e]hm and Rudolf Hess, two homosexuals who were among the very few people with whom he used the familiar du. But one cannot conclude that he therefore shared his friend's sexual tastes. Still, during the months he was with Hess in Landsberg, their relationship must have become very close. When Hitler left the prison he fretted about his friend who languished there, and spoke of him tenderly, using Austrian diminutives: 'Ach mein Rudy, mein Hesserl, isn't it appalling to think that he's still there.' One of Hitler's valets, Schneider, made no explicit statement about the relationship, but he did find it strange that whenever Hitler got a present he liked or drew an architectural sketch that particularly pleased him, he would run to Hess- who was known in homosexual circles as "Fraulein Anna"-as a little boy would run to his mother to show his prize to her...Finally there is the nonconclusive but interesting fact that one of Hitler's prized possessions was a handwritten love letter which King Ludwig II had written to a manservant" (Waite, 1977:283f).
Hitler, if homosexual, was certainly not exclusively so. There are at least four women, including his own niece, with whom Hitler had sexual relationships, although these relationships were not normal. Both Waite and Langer suggest that his sexual encounters with women included expressions of his coprophilic perversion as well as other extremely degrading forms of masochism. It is interesting to note that all four women attempted suicide after becoming sexually involved with Hitler. Two succeeded (Langer:175f).
The Homoerotic Brotherhood
Whether or not Hitler was personally involved in homosexual relationships, the evidence is clear that he knowingly and intentionally surrounded himself with practicing homosexuals from his youth. Like Roehm, Hitler seemed to prefer homosexual companions and co-workers. In addition to Roehm and Hess, two of his closest friends, Hitler filled key positions with known or suspected homosexuals. Rector, himself a "gay Holocaust" revisionist, attempts to dismiss sources that attribute homosexuality to leading Nazis, but nevertheless writes that...
Reportedly, Hitler Youth leader, Baldur von Schirach was bisexual; Hitler's private attorney, Reich Legal Director, Minister of Justice, butcher Governor- General of Poland, and public gay-hater Hans Frank was said to be a homosexual; Hitler's adjutant Wilhelm Bruckner was said to be bisexual;...Walter Funk, Reich Minister of Economics [and Hitler's personal financial advisor] has frequently been called a "notorious" homosexual ...or as a jealous predecessor in Funk's post, Hjalmar Schacht, contemptuously claimed, Funk was a "harmless homosexual and alcoholic;" ...[Hitler's second in command] Hermann Goering liked to dress up in drag and wear campy make-up; and so on and so forth (Rector:57).
Igra, who confidently asserts that the above men were homosexuals, cites still other Hitler aides and close friends who were known homosexuals as well. He states that Hitler's chauffeur and one-time personal secretary, Emile Maurice, for example, was homosexual, as well as the pornographer Julius Streicher, who "was originally a school teacher, but was dismissed by the Nuremberg School Authorities, following numerous charges of pederasty brought against him" (Igra:72f). SS Chief Heinrich Himmler's "pederastic proclivities [were] captured on film" by Nazi filmmaker Walter Frenz (Washington City Paper, April 4, 1995). Reinhard Heydrich, mastermind of the first pogrom, Kristallnacht, and of the death camps, was homosexual (Calic:64). In The Twelve Year Reich, Richard Grunberger tells of a party given by Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, which degenerated into a homosexual orgy (Grunberger:70). A recent biography of Albert Speer by Gitta Sereny speaks of a "homo-erotic (not sexual) relationship" between Speer and Hitler (Newsweek, Oct. 30, 1995). Langer notes that Hitler's personal bodyguards were "almost always 100 percent homosexuals" (Langer:179). Hitler's later public pronouncements against homosexuality never quite fit with the lifelong intimacy-sexual or otherwise-which he maintained with men he knew and accepted as homosexuals.
In light of the above it is not surprising that many of those whose ideas influenced Hitler were also homo-sexual. Chief among those were occultists Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels and Guido von List. In 1958, Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Daim published Der Mann der Hitler die Ideen gab ("The Man Who Gave Hitler His Ideas") in which he called Lanz the true "father" of National Socialism. Lanz was a former Cistercian monk who had been excommunicated for homosexuality (Sklar:19). After being expelled from the monastery, Lanz formed an occultic order called the Ordo Novi Templi or The Order of the New Temple (ONT). The ONT was an offshoot of the Ordo Templi Orientis which practiced tantric sex rituals (Howard:91).
On Christmas day, 1907, many years before it would become the symbol of the Third Reich, Lanz and other members of the ONT raised the swastika flag over the castle which Lanz had purchased to house the order (Goodrick-Clarke:109). Lanz chose the swastika, he said, because it was the ancient pagan symbol of Wotan, the god of storms (Cavendish:1983). (Wotan, the inspiration for "Storm Troopers," was the Teutonic equivalent of Baal in the Old Testament and Zeus in Greek culture). Waite notes that it was through Lanz that Hitler would learn that most of his heroes of history were also "practicing homosexuals" (Waite, 1977:94f). 71).
WIKIPEDIA FASCISM WITH AN AMERICAN FACE by Andrew Stergiou
In regard to Hitler, Nazism, the Nazi Party, the holocaust, Germany, World War II, and the future of western democracy and democratic values:
What is the defense of brutal Nazi oppression?
What is the justification of Nazi policies?
What is the basis of insane Nazi policies?
That those policies even violated the most conservative of ideals, contradicted rational Nationalist interests, ethical corporate business practices and applications so that those policies were kept secret from the German people as a whole, and censored in fact so as to undermine Germany, the German war effort, and which lead to the ruin of the nation.
I will not phrase what I say to mince words, though I would like to say “If fascism comes to America (the USA) it will have and American face, and if fascism comes to the Western World it will have a Democratic face” I hesitate because I am without any certainty that fascism does not already exist.
Who in their right mind can say that America and the Western World isn’t already under a fascist heel enforced publicly by the abuses of the police and legal system, privately by armies of paid and employed security, and intimately by the hordes of puppets whose strings get pulled every day by corporate media propagandists, and demagogues every where.
Recently I discovered a blatant series of articles on Wikipedia regarding the homosexual Nazis which violated any sense of decency in that they specifically contradicted each other in that they stated:
“Röhm (leader of the Nazi brownshirts Ernst Röhm (1931 – 1934) *** was rumored to be homosexual.”
Wikipedia in another article entry regarding “the night of the Long Knives” (Hitler’s butchering of the Brown shirt leadership) that: “Röhm was homosexual, ***.
This presents a grave distortion and revision of history in order to satisfy divergent elements:
1) The misguided wishing to portray in the current climate of the USA Gays as traditionally merely and solely victims when Gays were not, nor solely victims but victim and victimers.
2) Nazis who wish to hide in their association what they feel is a shame or a detriment to the public image (cough, cough) of their group
3) Those who demand “concrete proof” (wishing they were in bed with all of the above rather than with their twisted notes, and views) when the matter has been established for a great number of years in most circles.
But back to Wikipedia, the internet (its regular medium of presentation), America, Western industrial civilization, and fascism, as I stated I can not state that the United States of America is not fascist though I have considered the matter for years. Just because a government holds the sham of contrived elections and provides benefits does not mean it is democratic, nor is it fascist merely because people wear uniforms, shiny buttons, and shine their shoes.
As it is commonly known Wikipedia is edited 24/7 except for postings that are able to be protected but which are subject not merely to change and revision at any moment, but change and revision each and every time the wind blows, each and every time an editor sneezes, each and every time an author wakes to an empty coffee cup cranky and spills his spleen upon the page which the public pays for as victims of the fraud perpetuated upon it.
This phenomenon is not particular to merely Wikipedia but many online sites (liberal, conservative, fascist, revolutionary, moderate, and radical alike) for the internet is one big book burning waiting to happen at the touch of a button, while today the trend and practice has been to push to the sides all who don’t fall into one of the niche constituencies catered to in the established political order.
These elements are changing the world slowly one letter at a time as they proclaim the renaissance of human expression via the internet I am reminded of the phrase thrown at the Soviet Union “we are all equal” but some are more equal than others, as it it is no accident that the Gdansk shipyards in Poland were seeming closed by the very same elements that demands the communists kept them open.
It is no accident nor surprise to me that Nazis claim the right to freedom of speech, thugs demand police protection, law abiding citizens take the law into their own hands, and children say you are unfair, demand candy, an allowance, and accept no responsibility hence my comparisons to Wikipedia its modus operandi of irresponsibility. For with each of Wikipedia’s crimes of deletion, blocking, banning, there are a million others that don’t end with its limitations of:
usefulness as a reference, anti-elitism, systemic bias, bias in perspective, difficulty of fact-checking, use of dubious sources, exposure to vandals, exposure to political operatives and advocates, privacy concerns, quality concerns, threat to traditional publishers, anonymous editing, the "hive mind", criticism of the contributors, flame wars, fanatics and special interests, censorship, abuse of power, level of debate, male domination.
For each specific act is based has many implications other implications e.g. an act of deletion also censors, and in that an author who contributes bases what they write on many components, that are deleted collectively not individually, nor individually examined, preserved, or discussed, an article which should be changed, is deleted in its entirety when perhaps it should be corrected, but is not because there is none there responsible for what others write.
And so slowly (or rather quickly) the truth of matters and reality is distorted and subjected to rumors on an unprecedented scale which threatens the very fabric of society with its unaccountable irresponsible undemocratic bureaucracy, and self-centered, egoism, and fractional approaches that has generated human tragedies which one day will perhaps come to those so called civilized nations who until now have stood by and watch others die.
It an accident that the Katrina disaster occurred in Louisiana under an Bush Republican administration and Democratic opposition? The Democratic and Republican leadership are driving these United States to the brink of disaster that one day will be visited upon them, as these disasters have occurred under their watch.
Much like Henry Winston in George Orwell’s book character in 1984 on the whole Wikipedia regularly conforms to the current status quo which it presents as truth and news when Wikipedia has no real basis to either, just as Henry Winston labored for the Ministry of Truth editing all references according to the current line of the ruling elite which was inspired by BBC.
Treacherously and slowly these petty bourgeois intellectuals who have no loyalty to the working class eventually cater one way or another to the ruling class as for they most part they only squawk not for any principled basis but to line their pockets, in loyal subservience to their masters, the bourgeois elite, just as they would if the working class was ruling.
Decline reason:
Uh, okay, but I'm not sure what that has to do with unblocking you? Please address your block specifically and with a touch more brevity, if you plan on posting another unblock request. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
Yeah in the the one minute after I posted you read it thought about it and said duh I don't know what the fuk--Andrew Zito 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Call it skimming. Your critique is certainly lengthy, and you may even bring up some good points, but it does not constitute an unblock request in any form I can recognize. As I said, please address the reasons for your block, if you plan on posting another request. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
GO BECOME SUCK UP TO THE BAR AS A LIZARDLAWYER I'm an idiot I wouldn't waste the time of talking to you Id take the bullet first and bury you:
So here are some more reasons keep your legalisms to yourself the general publc has enough trouble with the legal system not to need your contrived self-serving cjiquous superflous arbitration system go read what I write on my blogs to burn WIKIPEDIA as it is a error from the word go and we know which side it is on the wrong one so screw your legal tricks and circular logics we hav e better things to do.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/andrew_zito
- "Wikipedia: A Million Monkeys Typing" Editorial note from Workers Vanguard, biweekly newspaper of the Spartacist League/US [1]
- "Communiqué from Wikiality" Letter and response from Workers Vanguard on Wikipedia [2]
- The Book Stops Here Wired News article
- Microsoft's step into Wikipedia prompts debate
- Wiki wars, an article on Red Herring about contentious articles on Wikipedia (registration required)
- The Messiness of WikiDemocracy - by M.R.M. Parrott. Over-all positive but discusses some problems
- WikiTruth A non-public Wiki covering supposed abuse of Wikipedia by its own users and admins
- Wikiwatch
- Dated links
By the way IF WIKIPEDIA BLOCKS ME PERMANENTLY I WOULD CONSIDER IT A BADGE OF HONOR AS MANY OTHERS WOULD FOR YOU ARE CONSIDERED POORLY BY HONEST INTELLECTS--Andrew Zito 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
FINAL INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT AGAINST WIKIPEDIA IT AS OF THIS MOMENT TODAY WIKIPEDIA CONTINUES TO CENSOR AND OPPRESS ME WHILE REFUSING TO CORRECT ITS OWN ARTICLES IN CONTRADICTION, SO IF YOU DON'T WISH TO CAREFULLY READ WHAT I WROTE ALREADY ON THOSE ISIUES NOR APOLOGY AND INSTEAD ASK FOR LEGALISTIC ARGUMENTS I PITY YOUR DUMB ASS FOR WIKIPEDIA HAS NO INTEGRITY AT ALL AND DESERVES WHAT EVER HELL IT GETS--Andrew Zito 03:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- After a closer look at this account's contributions, I've extended the block. It is now indefinite. In addition, I've protected this talk page for 24 hours. Please calm down, stop shouting, and prepare yourself for reasonable conversation before posting further. You're welcome to criticize Wikipedia, me, or other users as much as you like, but if you're not here to contribute to the wiki, then that seems to be that. Thank you for your time and consideration. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am calmed but since you and the petty borgeois libertarian rightist trash controling Wikipedia has no cognitive understanding of English or any other language allow me to explain it to you in a short common expression "GO SCREW YOUR SELF YOURSELVES" for your solutions are not real solutions but reactionary vulgar authoritarian hypocrisy that allows you tp block people when you yourselves can present any sodomit travesty as you do read my blog you are now vying for the #1 spots of idiots. Again go screw yourself wikipedia is a waste of any serious learned person's time and efforts--Andrew Zito 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(REMOVE THE BLOCK - WIKIPEDIA continues to maintain a bizarre and inconsistent policy of decentralized callous disregard and disrespect of individual rights by their manner of obstructing valid uses of its services that values form over substance. While WIKIPEDIA maintains its own inconsistencies, distortions, hypocrisies it had punitively treated this user Andrew Zito when he drew public attention to incorrect WIKIPEDIA actions without WIKIPEDIA ever addressing those distortions they created that makes WIKIPEDIA the butt joke of any creditable institution: As such WIKIPEDIA should reverse its actions and remove the block of this user so as to address the matter in the spirit of what it claims rather than stubbornly sticking to the abusive form it has taken. At present WIKIPEDIA is in at least in two siginificant articles perpetuating historical revisionism on a grand scale.--Xaoskeller 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:Melina never on sunday 003.jpg[edit]
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Melina never on sunday 003.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)