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.
G'day Cobb,
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.
The people targetted by Wikipedia Review posters and Daniel Brandt were not new editors who came across a part of Wikipedia where editorial standards were lax and attempted to improve matters. They also weren't wiki-stalked or blocked for vandalism. Do you actually know what the big deal about WR *was*? The offending Wikipedia Review members are not the long-standing, representative Wikipedians you were talking about in your last post.
If you're going to make mocking replies, please do so under less fraudulent circumstances. I have no doubt there are plenty of times when you or any other poster here could attempt to trip me up; however, if you're going to attempt such a thing, you can at least do so after accurately representing the actual discussion, rather than brazenly changing tack and then using insults to try to cover it. That's a hack trick, and a clumsy one.
Do you think WR are alone, or just the most high-profile?
Wikipedia Review are definitely not alone. This is in part a consequence of our size and influence on the Internet (we attract the less stable elements of society), but also partly because of the way we treat some users (disaffected users attracted by the chance to discuss "what's wrong with Wikipedia"). However, they and their ilk (Brandt's "people who I think were mean to me" Hive Mind project and "people I want to be mean to" Hive2; WikiTruth) are definitely not relevant to what you were talking about, and you know it.
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 suppose it's theoretically possible you're right here, in that I'm not a newbie editor at the moment. But I was, once, and at that time "don't be a dick", "be objective" (I didn't know about NPOV, but objectivity sounded like an obvious goal for this sort of project), and "don't violate copyrights" (again, not stealing is hardly an unusual philosophy) worked just fine, as it has for thousands of other editors.
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?
I assume you think "dear" is meant to impress upon me your intellectual superiority. Well, it impresses upon me your wish to impress upon me your intellectual superiority, which will have to suffice.
What this has to do "with anything" is quite simple: you complain about the treatment of newbies, when the only experience of such treatment you've bothered to offer us as evidence so far are your attempts to delete others' hard work and how you reacted when they objected.
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?
At last, an argumentative gambit that isn't completely fatuous! Certainly, you're still a long way from convincing anyone that anything you have to say is remotely credible, but --- at least you've said something that can't be easily countered. What does one say to "you're a blowhard?" "I'm not" lacks style, and is hardly convincing. Any attempt to mount a convincing argument that one is *not* a blowhard, of course, merely cements the idea further.
Frankly, it's still argument-by-insult, but at least it's a reasonably well-thought-out insult, as opposed to your "stupid" --- which you worked so hard to disingenously insert --- above.
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.
You point to *my user agent string* as proof that I don't care about privacy --- a classic case of missing the forest for trees. My *real name* and *university* are sent out in *every single message I post to this list*! When did I say I jealously guarded *my* privacy?
All I said was that there were certain people who considered privacy important. Guess what? Some of them edit Wikipedia. Guess what? I don't want to see them forced to leave when we have no reason to do so other than Cobb being concerned that he can't Checkuser whomever he wants.
<snip/>