User talk:HarvxstBitter

Apologies; my comment diff. I didn't read carefully enough, and misread CE for BCE, which gave me the impressiin of an attempt to push back the date. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you kindly; I know what it*’s like to care about your work. HarvxstBitter (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Given your recent non-sense edits and edit summaries at Talk:Logic, Communication, and various other articles, it seems that you are WP:NOTHERE. Please be aware that this behavior may be interpreted as WP:VANDALISM. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You are the only one insisting “him or me” here

You are the only one abusing Wikipedia here

for following through on your personal vendetta, here, only You should be … play H~a~m~a~n

HarvxstBitter (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi HarvxstBitter! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Money. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Money, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. NebY (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

ball went over the center field fence so hometown blue calls strike 3

(Warning: NebY here suspendably overboard)

HarvxstBitter (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit to the Morality article. None of it is even remotely compatible With Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, or objectives. You WILL NOT be permitted to edit the article in this manner. And noting the warnings above, I think you need to be aware that repeatedly acting with such flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's objectives is liable to result in a WP:NOTHERE block if continued. Find out how Wikipedia actually works, and if this isn't compatible with your objectives, that's your problem, not ours. Start a blog or something if you want to publish your own ideas. That isn't an option here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Heard; happy thanksgiving Anyway

HarvxstBitter (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia. Contributors are expected to write in English: not just in articles, but on talk pages, and in edit summaries etc. Recognised English, without your own personal markup-language, orthography, or whatever this edit-summary nonsense is supposed to be. ' →$$Does Wikipedia value...', '~w~e~%~' . Apart from anything else, it looks like typical vandal spamming, which isn't going to encourage anyone to take you seriously, even when you aren't peddling your own off-the-wall ideas. You aren't helping yourself, and you certainly aren't helping anyone else. I suggest you stop, before someone obliges you to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m h0n0red to w4sh your feet h3r3.

If y%u are having a h4rd spacetime understanding the %material, perhaps %ther $tudent$ are struggling (t% pr%c3$$) through similar difficulties??

Gr4c3 wxns;

kn%w thys=exl=f,

/HarvxstBitter (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, here's the deal - if I see any more of this crap in edit summaries, on talk pages, or anywhere else where other contributors might reasonably expect to read it, I am going to bring up your behaviour (not just this, but your more general attitude towards Wikipedia, which seems to involve thinking you can somehow impose your will on the entire project: e.g. here) at WP:ANI. Which could quite possibly result in you being given an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Physics can’t defy G%d’s will, but m3n remain free to do so.

$HarvxstBitter (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Cuidado: Wikipedia, you should “ring up” AndyTheGrump for this,

$$HarvxstBitter (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing..

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HarvxstBitter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The eyes of the right side of history see this as egregious bullying and saintly patience, HarvxstBitter (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

History does not have a "right side" or "wrong side" (or "left side" for that matter); it simply is. Editing conduct on Wikipedia, on the other hand, absolutely has a right side, which you were not on and continue to diverge further from. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HarvxstBitter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

diagnosis pathological mass-bullying predicated on the joint-adherence to a fantastical copula designated “Wikipedia.” HarvxstBitter (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not a sensible appeal, since it in no way addresses the reasons for your block, which I have reviewed and fully concur with. You're welcome to appeal again, but I suggest you do it properly (see WP:GAB for advice), because one more appeal along the lines of your first two is likely to see you blocked from editing your talk page as well. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, HarvxstBitter,

What you have gone through is not mass-bullying. Wikipedia is a 24 year old collaborative project that is designed to function according to many rules and guidelines and you have been told by several editors that you are working in violation of these guidelines. Everyone who wants to edit here has to learn to adapt and edit according to these rules and policies or they are sent packing. You are not the first editor who has run into this problem, you are not even the first editor today, vandals and trolls get blocked every day and since you seem to have no desire to follow our policies and guidelines, your behavior is identical to vandals and trolls whether or not you see yourself as one or you don't. You have no chance to be unblocked unless you radically change your behavior and agree to work with the rest of us. It very well could be that Wikipedia is not a good match for you and I encourage you to get yourself a personal blog where you won't have all of these rules you need to follow. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

What collaboration can glory have with blindly thrown boiler-plate?

Egregious, mass-bullying!!!

Because personalism wears Wikipedia better.

I vote to save the kids and free the slaves, but I know how you grownups favor your fantastical copulas.

Beyond dire warning, Liz:

Wikipedia, physicalism isn’t true or neutral, just more popular;

In G%d’s good work, tragically yours,

HarvxstBitter (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You obviously have some strong beliefs, unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place for you to voice them. This is an encyclopedia, it must be neutral and only summarise what reliable sources say.

You absolutely cannot "free the slaves" here. If you wish to do this, you must create your own website or encyclopedia with it's own rules. This is not your forum to spread your message.

I'm sure you understand that there is a time and place for everything, yes? You wouldn't get your car fixed at McDonald's, for example. Right now you're doing the equivalent of asking us to fix your breaklight but I can only make you a burger.

If you want to contribute to neutrally-written articles then that's great, please commit to doing so.

If you are only here to spread your message, please understand that this is not the right place for you to do that. This is a private website with set rules that you absolutely must follow in order to be here.

Please, feel free to make a Wordpress or similar website so that people can actually see and understand your message, that way your truth won't be filtered or amended by anyone except you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s not because my work is unencyclopedic that I'm being bullied so harsh, but because it is. HarvxstBitter (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

When pathology can't stop itself from running over actual people, ... =x=HarvxstBitter (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop this now. You're blocked, which means no editing. You're allowed to edit this talk page only for the purposes of appealing or discussing your block. If you continue editing it for unrelated purposes, you will be blocked from this page as well. Last warning, please heed it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my unblock request you denied;

never a challenge to my substance

/s HarvxstBitter (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've taken an honest look and feel that everyone did clearly explain the issue so I'm sorry that you're having trouble understanding why this happened and feel that we're being too harsh. No matter how true your message and how strongly you feel, it just can't be on here because that's not what this website is designed for.

I hope you do seriously consider my suggestion to create your own website, because I think you'll be much happier doing that - you won't have to follow any rules or restrictions and can say whatever you want, however you want to say it without any barriers between you and your audience.

I wish you well in your future endeavours. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have been writing personalism into the encyclopedia appropriately. The only problem is that physicalism hates it, and is way more popular. For myriad reasons I know you have not taken an honest look at my work. It* has drawn nothing but farcical deflective chaff because it* is unassailable, and hated for it*. Wikipedia could be rewritten for personalists. But the motivation is contrary.

Hit me with even one real specific? How'd I specifically transgress "Wikipedia?" Where? Or do we condemn the world summarily on superficialities?

400 years in 3gypt tragic, for a pathological sense of decorum in defense of a fantastical copula:

I hope you repent and bear your cross with dignity,

HarvxstBitter (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You have just given a perfect explanation for why you have been blocked. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. And nor is it a platform to advance your preferred philosophy while denigrating an imaginary "church of scientism" .'Your work', i.e. the personal opinions you have been shoehorning into articles, doesn't belong here per core policies arrived at by the community of editors, over decades. And this applies regardless of how 'unassailable' you think it is. We are under no obligation whatsoever to engage in debate with you over the merits of your arguments, since they can have no bearing on Wikipedia content. Go start a blog. If your ideas have any merit, people will read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

What original research?! No specific entry linked, of course. (As if Wikipedia had a rule against adding extra information in talk to assist compehension.)

Personalism has reliable sources. You hate them. You like physicalist sources. You call your philosophy “neutral.” Wikipedia remains a collaboration dedicated to mass-bullying for the preferred worldview of physicalism.

Wikipedia is written by its userbase. There is no monolithic “Wikipedia.” My blood is in it*; your blood is in it*; a lot of people have invested their continuity to the collaboration. There might be one guy that could nuke it, but even then, it wouldn’t nullify the past, just hide it. Wikipedia is written by its userbase. If you write from a physicalist perspective, you can sting thoughts together to say something you are trying to say without much molestation. If you write from a personalist perspective, putting two different ideas from two different sources together is dismissed as “original research.” You need to find a reliable source that put those two peculiar ideas next to each other already. Just because I make you think of something you have never thought of before doesn’t make it “original research.” Skilled writing would be treasured by a healthy Wikipedia.

RE: “We are under no obligation whatsoever to engage in debate with you over the merits of your arguments, since they can have no bearing on Wikipedia content.” You are delusional about the nature of the ground under your Fe%et if you think you are free to make of Wikipedia some bubble where physics and morality have no ingress. Your fancies cannot nullify your duties. Content does matter, especially when it’s true, sourced, and superbly written. You aren’t defending an aggrieved Wikipedia here. If you bully other users with no regard to their fundamental dignity as persons, nor to the content of their submitted character, wikipedia can’t shield you from the moral and physical repercussions thereof. Wikipedia could be a tool for good, but instead it is an instrument of rebellion.

You could have done better with the content I supplied here. Obligation or no, you’ve chosen to suppress this precious resource. You could have helped sow, or even just not harm, but instead you’ve chosen to attack, and withhold. Billions of people benefit "if" my content is sound, but you claim you have no obligation to think of them, either. It’s pathological. Priorities all out of order.

My ideas are indeed meretricious. And if Wikipedia could have debunked them it* would have.

HarvxstBitter (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 PhilKnight (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)