User talk:SmashTheState

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]

Good work on the Rand article, Smashie

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]

Ottawa Panhandlers Union

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]

Huey Newton

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]

Your recent edits

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]

Ottowa Panhandlers' union

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]

Your personal point-of-view

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]

Your personal point-of-view

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]

Military history

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]

Shoop

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]

shoop reloaded

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]

Jane Scharf etc

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]

Mentioned at WP:SSP

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]

Rancourt

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]

User:SmashTheState

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]

MfD nomination of User:SmashTheState

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]

Blocked

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

AfD nomination of Solidarity unionism

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]