Green021176

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Criticism of Wikipedia, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wikipedia user talk pages are not reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Criticism of Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Bard was ignoring that Wikipedia citations count as reliable sources and violated the 3 revert rule. Her comments ignored the content of the edits, and were thusly ignored after I attempted to contact her on her own talk page and the discussion page of the criticisms in question. Seems likely she's just trying to defend Wikipedia's credibility while ignoring the rules it lays out and the evidence provided. --Green021176 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Hi - please take a look at Wikipedia's reliable source policy - Wikipedia should not be used as a source, and you are adding original research to your edits, anyway. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia DOES count as its own source when you're referring to logs, discussions, etc. Just as if you were claiming that "there is a big online encyclopedia that some people can edit" and citing wikipedia.com. Additional research counts when multiple sources are provided to support a claim, as is the case here. --Green021176 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a source per the policy link I posted above, your interpretation of anything at the links you provided as "criticism" is original research, and you are in violation of the three revert rule. Please stop your disruptions. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Three revert rule does not apply to vandalism, which undoing of article contributions qualify as. Additions to an article are not disruptions without reason. The reasons you gave were already addressed. --Green021176 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If these type contributions are why you've come here, I'm happy to reinstate the block. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source within Wikipedia or your block to declare that Wikipedia censors anything. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Original research. You may also want to reread the three revert rule and Wikipedia:Vandalism. People who attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground are quickly shown the door. --auburnpilot talk 20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems the cult here (err, "culture") is that Wikipedia is itself abject from reality. If pointing to it as an example of itself is not allowed, and instead you need a 3rd party to publish it (despite that Wikipedia's own servers and admins confirm it), then it's a fantasy-land. This would be like a documentary film-maker making a video to claim some type of animals don't harm humans, then refusing to acknowledge that in fact they do even after being caught on his own tape (but rather not admitting it until NYT publishes it). Reality is not dependent upon news sources. If Wikipedia's own server isn't a reliable source, then Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Certainly the people already dominant here are worthless (though that should have been figured by the fact that they spend their time policing the only place they can flex power; doing a full-time job while paying to be allowed to). I see I can't inject sense into your hypocritical world, and I'm only being attacked for trying. What fools. --Green021176 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)