" 

 == (untitled section) == 
 Attacking an editor?  PLEASE! I've nothing against them.  I was attacking the entire stupid system that denies originality.  If the rest of the world followed that, we'd still be in caves.  One of the reasons Wikipedia is dying is due to that policy. 

 And blocking me from editing?  Big froggin' deal.  I contribute until I become tired of and frustrated with the stupidity of the policies here.  It doesn't bother me a bit if I were banned.  I've excellent writing and proofreading skills and choose to donate them here - if Wikipedia cannot understand that intelligent people consider some of their policies tres stupide, I'll stop donating time here and thus have more time for my other pursuits.  Which are far more rewarding than battling the idiots here which includes the stupid policy of allowing anonymous usernames. ""The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."" - http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ - http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ ""As is sometimes the case with highly insular organizations, Wikipedia has developed an elaborate jargon, incomprehensible to outsiders. It has been made even more bewildering to the uninitiated by being expressed almost exclusively in the form of acronyms. Increasingly, this serves to defend the project against newcomers who actually believe that “anyone can edit”; in content disputes, it gives the advantage to entrenched persons who can cite policy with great facility (and greater selectivity.)"" - http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/11/25/taking-the-alphabet-soup-with-a-grain-of-salt/ - http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/17/anonymous-revenge-editing-on-wikipedia-the-case-of-robert-clark-young-aka-qworty/ -— Preceding unsigned comment added by   •  08: 

 : Hi Macerickson, I have moved your comments here because it is usually preferable to keep a discussion confined to a single page. I see you responded to this warning, which I had placed on your talk page recently. Please understand, I'm not your enemy, I'm just another editor like yourself. And, just like you, I can find Wikipedia somewhat confusing and frustrating sometimes. There are some people here who may be difficult to deal with and somewhat unhelpful, but there are also many, many people here who are very helpful, kind and patient. Though Wikipedia has flaws, overall it is a remarkable accomplishment. The reason for this is because of the hard work of many people, who just like yourself, want to build and improve the project. Even though the motto is ""anyone can edit"", it doesn't mean anyone can just do anything. There are rules and guidelines that determine just what, how, where and when, content can be added. Sometimes this 'wiki-policy' can be dense, counterintuitive and counterproductive, but overall, it does keep the project focused on it's purpose - that being the building of an encyclopaedia. You have to understand that content must be properly sourced. People can't just add whatever they want, no matter how well written or authoritative it may be. Unsourced content, even if well-intended is considered to be 'original research', and is not allowed. This applies to everyone, even scholars, professionals and academics. This way, we know that whatever we read here is a pure and supported fact, and not a guess, opinion or mistake. I'm on your side, and I'm willing to help. You can also find plenty of helpful people at the help desk.  

 : Now as to warning... it was just that, a ""warning"". Consider it as advice, rather than scolding or admonishment. You had posted this; 
 :* ""i HAVE A RELIABLE SOURCE, YOU IDIOT - ME! tHIS PERSON CAUSED ME MONETARY AND EMOTIONAL LOSS!"" 

 :::''""yOUR STUPIDITY IS LIKE ASKING A HISTORIAN TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE FROM A DOCTORAL DISSERTATION WHEN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE! wHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? BECAUSE SOMEONE PUBLISHES A REPORT - AN ARTICLE THAT COULD BE FICTION - THAT IS MORE RELIABLE THAN SOMEONE WHOM CAN TESTIFY TO THE EVENTS? I WAS THERE! I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! YOU ARE A FOOL - NOT ONLY THAT, YOU ARE SUCH A FOOL THAT YOU CANNOT RECOGNIZE YOUR FOOLISHNESS! gO TO http://www.collarme.com/personals/v/1915332/details.h