Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Please don't attack editors. Your argument is more compelling when you keep it to the issue at hand. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

SaltyBoatr has repeatedy attacked me, just recently by pointing to me and Hauskalainen as the reason to freeze the Second Amendment page, when in fact he was the only one who was engaged in an edit war/3rr violation. Additionally he has filed a complaint against me without informing me, so that I could defend myself. I only found out by checking his contributions. Too bad there isn't a WP:NO-Backstabbing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Second_Amendment_long_term_AnonIP__disruption.

Alerting you to a discussion[1] at the ANI noticeboard. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/71.184.184.238. Thank you. Ps. Remember that this does not mean that you are a sockpupet. This just means that you are suspected of being one and we have to clear up the matter and clear your name if you are not a sockpuppet. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 05:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:V where it says the burden of proof is on the person who wants to insert or reinsert material. You are edit warring and reinserting unsourced or poorly sourced POV synthesis. Please stop inserting unsourced material without consensus. Also, these comments were rude, please watch your tone, and remember to be WP:POLITE.
Edit warring and personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy. If you want to continue editing here, please refrain from doing either.
--LK (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gold standard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 04:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I have been careful not to make 4 "changing" edits in any 24 hour period with intervening posts by other editors on any article. If I am nearly in violation so is any other editor I am disputing content with. Have you placed a warning on their talk page as well or is this harassment just for my benefit?71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see if I get this right, some wiki editor who would make a good replacement for a village idjit, STARTS an edit war, refused to engage in conversation on the talk page, wants me to prove that a central bank can't "print gold" (PRETTY DARN OBVIOUS), wants me to prove that higher interest rates reward savers (PRETTY DARN OBVIOUS), that higher interest rates punish debtors (PRETTY DARN OBVIOUS)and can't quite get the fact that THE one cited line which may be questioned is supported by a cite referencing material authored by Irwin Fisher, probably the most famous of the early 20th Century US economistst, and further supported by a cite to material authored by Henry Blodgett, a big name mainsteam investment advisor, and then gets into a huff because I tell him he should get a 20% MORTGAGE as in his fantasy land that would be more rewarding then a 5% mortgage currently available.

I get warned and then blocked, and he who started the edit war gets jack!

No wonder this country is so deep in %^$#!

And thinking about it he SHOULD get that 20% mortgage. Some people only learn through pain and he looks to have less then his share of pain receptors.71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and having been accused of being a gold bug, I do admit to putting LOTS of money on gold and silver stocks this decade. All I can say is that GOLD'S BEEN DARN GOOD TO ME! something dollars holders can't say!71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quotes from gold standard talk page

Me * Saving is encouraged due to higher real interest rates since there is no central bank "printing gold" to drive them down.

village idjit - ccomment: unsourced and wrong

Me in response to comment by village idjit - That deserves a ROTFLMAO! You really think that you will have LESS incentive to save if the bank pays you 10% versus the current sub 1%?71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Me * Going into debt is discouraged as higher real interest rates make it more expensive to go into debt.

village idjit - comment: unsourced and wrong

Me in response to comment by village idji- That deserved a even bigger ROTFLMAO! You really think that you will go deeper into debt if you PAY 20% interest versus say 5%?

Any other wiki editors out there think that higher interest rates REWARD debtors and PUNISH savers? IF you do I have a special deal on a credit card with a "rewarding" 500% interest rate? If that's not rewarding enough I can make it 5,000% and for those "SPECIAL people" who need "special rewards" I can make that interest rate 50,000%.

Also: How many also think that GOLD can be can be "printed" with the liberal application of wood pulp and ink?71.184.184.238 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0

Stark - the more you owe the richer you are

Reporter - So why not go for it and borrow a few trillion next year so we can become richer

Stark - Get out of here - or I'll throw you out the window!

I felt for that reporter when i first saw thin, now with the above ban, I FEEL for him!71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are a soldier as well as a 2A proponent; if the latter you have presumably learned how to not shoot yourself in the foot. A good thing to also learn in Wikipedia, where the landscape is defined by the Wikipedia rules. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well known among those who know me, that I will cut off my nose to spite my face, and I take PRIDE in that fact! Hahahahahahahaha!71.184.184.238 (talk)

Well, I'm sure that they respect you for that self-sacrifice.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your recent style of editing I see a pattern of editing by revert, edit war edits. Here[2], here[3], here[4] and here[5]. This is destructive to the editing environment at Wikipedia. Please stop this habit. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blaming me for your misdeeds.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case what I wrote gets lost in the giant discussion at 2A, I wanted to let you know that I put the question of the SKOIEN quote at the OR noticeboard so we can get some uninvolved opinions on just this issue. I encourage you to go add your two cents there. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cut back on the attitude on the talk page and your edit comments. You've cross the line more than once into personal attacks. You are also not allowed to alter other editor comments on the talk page in the manner you did (see WP:TPO - [6]. Comment on the edits all you like, but stop with the comments directed towards editors. You have a fairly hostile tone in many of your posts. Continuing on in this way will probably end up with this posted on WP:WQA. Ravensfire (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to respond to the comment that was inadvertently deleted. My apologies.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gold standard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Note that you have already broken WP:3RR. If you continue to edit-war, you will be blocked. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not break 3rr. 3rr involves the deletion of already appearing material ( or contested) more then 3 times in a 24 hour period. I have yet to do that on the gold standard page. If you think I did list the 4 (or more) posts. Otherwise apologize.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gold Standard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ravensfire (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice I didn't make more then 3 reverts.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that my posts to resolve the edit dispute VASTLY outnumber yours. Why don't you take your own advise?71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In soapboxing and personal attacks, you truly do outnumber my comments. In ignoring objections and talking past people, you truly outnumber my comments. Ravensfire (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In actually LISTING objections - you simply don't!71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Synthesis.2C_edit_warring.2C_incivility_on_Gold_standard_by_71.184.184.238. Thank you. --CRETOG8(t/c) 03:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jmlk17 05:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.