Trippy01

Hi. I'm new here. I first thought this site was cool, because it was implied that everyone could contribute to the site, and help this community to grow. But, after just a few days, I see that there is no freedom of speech and that edits are quickly reversed if what we write is not along the same lines of thinking as the admins. Why even give people the option to contribute with edits and ideas, if those ideas are blocked at every turn?

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --fvw* 06:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. And please don't delete these warnings from your talk page. - ulayiti (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have not, nor have I EVER vandalized any pages on this site. This community was set up so that everyone can contribute, and you abuse your authority when you yourself VANDALIZE every little edit that the members make.

The community is perfectly allowed to disagree with you. It has. Looks like 4-to-1 against your version. Therefore you must stop. See Wikipedia:Consensus. ~~ N (t/c) 22:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Those words are not synonyms for homosexuality. Please do not add them to the article again. Rhobite 21:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Those ARE synonyms for homosexuality. If you consider them derogatory, perhaps I'll remind you that the subject itself is derogatory. You cannot undo every little change that the members make. You have abused your authority and are being reported for harassment.

A homosexual person is much more likely to take offense to being called "fruit", "homo", or "nancy" than to being called "gay" or "homosexual". You cannot sensibly argue that they mean the same thing. Might I ask if you have some sort of agenda? ~~ N (t/c) 22:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no agenda. I simply wanted to contribute by making the description of the word more complete. Whether someone considers it offensive or not is not the point. The words mean the same thing. If something was removed everytime some uptight person got offended, half of the entries on this site would not be here. I am not using vulgar language. I have not defiled anything by spamming, blanking, or adding links. I have not vandalized anything on this site.

The mere presence of those words doesn't offend me, and if it did I still wouldn't push for their removal. The real problem is perhaps best demonstrated by analogy: what if African-American were to say "Synonyms include nigger, etc."? Can't you see that it's less complete if you don't note that a term is seen as derogatory? ~~ N (t/c) 00:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings or previous discussion from your user talk page. Doing so is considered vandalism. If you continue to engage in this behavior, you may be blocked. Thank you for your compliance, zappa.jake (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Yamla 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with that edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippy01 (talk • contribs)

The edit you were blocked for is this one. It was blatant vandalism and you have been previously warned. I've been looking through your edit history for any evidence of an edit to an article that is not blatant vandalism and can find none. I warn you that we can block your account indefinitely if you do not shape up. --Yamla 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)