> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>Oh, yes? I assume you have an example at the ready, because surely no-one
>would have the gall to pull a statement like that out of their arse with
>no proof of it being true.
Proof about being wiki-stalked and hassled by organised groups?
Are you actually stupid, or being deliberately stupid, or have you just
woken up
and don't know about the Wikiedia Review fiasco? Interested parties would
like
to know.
Do you think WR are alone, or just the most high-profile?
>As for knowledge of the Wikipedia rules, that's rot, too. Knowing how to
>behave appropriately in a collaborative environment is useful (hint: don't
>be a dick), and having respect for our core principles, like neutrality
>and respect for copyright, even more so. Wikipedia has too many rules,
>true, but you can get by quite happily without them if you just use common
>sense and keep in mind our principles.
Lovely sentiments. It's just a shame they don't have anything to do with
the actual reality of Wikipedia for a newbie editor.
>I suspect, from what (admittedly little) I've seen from you, that you
>have neither the backing of policy nor common sense when you
>ride out on your high horse desperate to delete someone else's hard work.
Well, of course you don't dear... but what does this have to do with
anything?
> Despite this minor issue, which others would consider crippling, you still
insist on
> stamping your foot and complaining that you never get your own way. And
> as for "consensus building", well, it's a beautiful dream, but you
> actually have to talk to people (as opposed to ranting at them for being
> too stupid to agree with you).
As opposed to long, patronising lectures full of misrepresentations from
blowhards like you?
>As for the time it takes to run a checkuser, well, there are certain
>people who consider privacy important. Crazy, I know. What, do they have
>something to hide? All right-thinking, red-blooded human beings owe it to
>themselves --- and us, damn it! --- to look under the beds of these people
>immediately, in case a Commie is hiding there.
Your IP address is all over the internet; so is your user agent string
(operating
system and browser). You are talking a complete a total load of old bollocks
- and that doesn't come as a surprise given some of your other confused
messages on this list.
>> In summary, the system is broken. But you won't get any sense on this
>> mailing list, because most of the people here don't actually edit
>> Wikipedia these days. They just pontificate and have faith in some
>> mystical power of the Wiki.
>True, dat. It's left to people like you, the brave reformers fighting the
>good fight against us crusty old bureaucrats to try to pull Wikipedia out
>of its death spiral. Cobblers---sorry, I mean Cobb---we, who are about to
>die, salute you!
Awww... isn't that sweet. You tried to make a joke.