The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V « < 5 6 7 8 9 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> False statements at RFA, They "should be banned"
Shalom
post Wed 23rd September 2009, 5:08pm
Post #121


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Tue 22nd September 2009, 9:22pm) *

Evidently, Shalom cannot handle the truth. See his current, childish signature.

You can't handle the truth. Thank you for finally noticing. Look, would you prefer to delete the 350 articles I've created and the thousands of productive edits I have made both to mainspace and Wikipedia space? Would Wikipedia be better off without those articles and edits? The damage of my vandalism in every case has been temporary - I have never succeeded in putting in vandalism that lasted more than one month unnoticed (except one time when I reverted it myself after three weeks). In contrast, the benefit of my article work is permanent until Wikipedia collapses: people are still reading my articles and learning from them. So I stand by my statement that my overall effect on Wikipedia and its readers has been positive. (Heck, I went on a vandalism attack this past week, and I still say my overall effect since 2005 has been positive. It will take many, many more vandalism sprees to change that fact, if it ever can be changed, not that I want it to change.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Wed 23rd September 2009, 11:06pm
Post #122


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Hello? Is anyone going to stand up for me? You know I'm right, folks. hrmph.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Wed 23rd September 2009, 11:09pm
Post #123


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 23rd September 2009, 7:06pm) *

Hello? Is anyone going to stand up for me? You know I'm right, folks. hrmph.gif


Why haven't you been blocked yet?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Friday
post Wed 23rd September 2009, 11:33pm
Post #124


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed 24th Dec 2008, 7:00am
Member No.: 9,513

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 23rd September 2009, 5:08pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Tue 22nd September 2009, 9:22pm) *

Evidently, Shalom cannot handle the truth. See his current, childish signature.

You can't handle the truth. Thank you for finally noticing. Look, would you prefer to delete the 350 articles I've created and the thousands of productive edits I have made both to mainspace and Wikipedia space? Would Wikipedia be better off without those articles and edits? The damage of my vandalism in every case has been temporary - I have never succeeded in putting in vandalism that lasted more than one month unnoticed (except one time when I reverted it myself after three weeks). In contrast, the benefit of my article work is permanent until Wikipedia collapses: people are still reading my articles and learning from them. So I stand by my statement that my overall effect on Wikipedia and its readers has been positive. (Heck, I went on a vandalism attack this past week, and I still say my overall effect since 2005 has been positive. It will take many, many more vandalism sprees to change that fact, if it ever can be changed, not that I want it to change.)



I can only conclude that people like this are not adults and have never had a job.

"Gee boss, I did my job most of the time, and I only occasionally shit on the floor! And even when I did, it got cleaned up pretty quickly..."

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Thu 24th September 2009, 12:02am
Post #125


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 23rd September 2009, 7:33pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 23rd September 2009, 5:08pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Tue 22nd September 2009, 9:22pm) *

Evidently, Shalom cannot handle the truth. See his current, childish signature.

You can't handle the truth. Thank you for finally noticing. Look, would you prefer to delete the 350 articles I've created and the thousands of productive edits I have made both to mainspace and Wikipedia space? Would Wikipedia be better off without those articles and edits? The damage of my vandalism in every case has been temporary - I have never succeeded in putting in vandalism that lasted more than one month unnoticed (except one time when I reverted it myself after three weeks). In contrast, the benefit of my article work is permanent until Wikipedia collapses: people are still reading my articles and learning from them. So I stand by my statement that my overall effect on Wikipedia and its readers has been positive. (Heck, I went on a vandalism attack this past week, and I still say my overall effect since 2005 has been positive. It will take many, many more vandalism sprees to change that fact, if it ever can be changed, not that I want it to change.)



I can only conclude that people like this are not adults and have never had a job.

"Gee boss, I did my job most of the time, and I only occasionally shit on the floor! And even when I did, it got cleaned up pretty quickly..."

It's more like, "Gee, boss, I raised $100,000 for your nonprofit but I once pulled the fire alarm as a prank and forced everyone to leave the office for 15 minutes." Yes, I could get fired for doing that, but (except in truly extraordinary circumstances) pulling the fire alarm does not cause $100,000 worth of damage; therefore, my net effect on the nonprofit is still overwhelmingly positive.

Look, Wikipedia is a volunteer project. In many cases, had I not done a certain productive action, nobody would have done it at all, ever; and in other cases, nobody would have done something similar for many months. This is analogous to raising money for a nonprofit that would otherwise not receive the money. I'm not sure how apt the fire drill prank is: it's really overstating the problem because I disrupted individuals, not the whole working group of the project.

Edit: Or you could go with the "crap on the floor" analogy if you prefer. My point is: I was not doing a job that someone else could do equally well (or perhaps a little better or worse). I was doing volunteer work that, had I not done it, would otherwise not have been done. My value to Wikipedia should be measured by what Wikipedia would be if it lacked those 350 articles and 10,000+ productive mainspace edits.

This post has been edited by Shalom: Thu 24th September 2009, 12:09am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Thu 24th September 2009, 12:52am
Post #126


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 23rd September 2009, 7:06pm) *

Hello? Is anyone going to stand up for me? You know I'm right, folks. hrmph.gif


Well, I would rather stand up for Nana Mouskouri:

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymous editor
post Thu 24th September 2009, 4:07am
Post #127


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon 4th Aug 2008, 6:21pm
Member No.: 7,398



Wikipedia would be better off without Shalom's contributions. It's not really much of a question, and only Shalom would treat it as the "dumbest post on WR."

Aside from the fact that there are some spectacularly stupid posts at Der Revue, my post was spot on.

No one values what you did, Shalom. Apparently, you think you were a great contributor and that excuses all the disruption you caused.

All your silly raving and insults don't really change a damn thing about the reality of it all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Thu 24th September 2009, 4:23am
Post #128


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 30th March 2009, 7:19pm) *

So anyway, I've revealed everything that happened up to July 18, 2008. For the next three weeks I did not edit Wikipedia at all. Then I relocated to get a checkuser-proof clean start. I created a new account, whose name I will leave to the side for now. It and a bunch of vandal-socks got blocked in September. Around that time I also made troll accounts on other projects, for example, "Poetloser" on Wikiquote.

I'm finding all of this hard to follow.

Are you the annoying 12-year-old kid who spoke at the New York wikithingy last year?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymous editor
post Thu 24th September 2009, 5:16am
Post #129


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon 4th Aug 2008, 6:21pm
Member No.: 7,398



I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Appleby
post Thu 24th September 2009, 10:43am
Post #130


Member
***

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed 9th Sep 2009, 2:45pm
Member No.: 13,585



I don't think people quite grasp a fundamental point yet. Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation and volunteers are often easily deterred by disruption, any editor who is at all disruptive needs to be penalised. Both Shalom and Peter Damian, for example, are in general good editors and no doubt lovely people, but have deservedly been punished. I doubt that I would have blocked Peter permanently, but YMMV.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Thu 24th September 2009, 12:05pm
Post #131


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Appleby @ Thu 24th September 2009, 5:43am) *
I don't think people quite grasp a fundamental point yet. Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation and volunteers are often easily deterred by disruption, any editor who is at all disruptive needs to be penalised.
Again with the myth of the volunteer! Wikipedia's editors are not volunteers. They are customers, and they're quite willing to 'pay' for what they want even in the presence of disruption; in fact, many of them prefer a disrupted environment as it either facilitates their purpose for patronizing Wikipedia, or at least provides them with added value.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LaraLove
post Thu 24th September 2009, 1:09pm
Post #132


Wikipedia BLP advocate
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined: Mon 28th Jan 2008, 7:53pm
Member No.: 4,627

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Tue 22nd September 2009, 9:22pm) *

Evidently, Shalom cannot handle the truth. See his current, childish signature.

QUOTE
The dumbest comment on Wikipedia Review:
"You did as much damage as you helped." -- Anonymous editor
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23411&st=86

Ae's opinion seems valid to me. I'd have to say I agree.

Shalom, QFP this as the second dumbest comment on WR, I suppose.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Thu 24th September 2009, 1:39pm
Post #133


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 24th September 2009, 1:16am) *

I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.


Shappy is actually a lot wiser than people twice or thrice his age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shappy

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 24th September 2009, 8:05am) *

QUOTE(Appleby @ Thu 24th September 2009, 5:43am) *
I don't think people quite grasp a fundamental point yet. Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation and volunteers are often easily deterred by disruption, any editor who is at all disruptive needs to be penalised.
Again with the myth of the volunteer! Wikipedia's editors are not volunteers. They are customers, and they're quite willing to 'pay' for what they want even in the presence of disruption; in fact, many of them prefer a disrupted environment as it either facilitates their purpose for patronizing Wikipedia, or at least provides them with added value.


That doesn't make them customers. That makes them masochists. ermm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Friday
post Thu 24th September 2009, 2:07pm
Post #134


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed 24th Dec 2008, 7:00am
Member No.: 9,513

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 24th September 2009, 1:39pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 24th September 2009, 1:16am) *

I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.


Shappy is actually a lot wiser than people twice or thrice his age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shappy


Another tantrum? This makes him wise?


QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 24th September 2009, 1:39pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 24th September 2009, 8:05am) *

QUOTE(Appleby @ Thu 24th September 2009, 5:43am) *
I don't think people quite grasp a fundamental point yet. Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation and volunteers are often easily deterred by disruption, any editor who is at all disruptive needs to be penalised.
Again with the myth of the volunteer! Wikipedia's editors are not volunteers. They are customers, and they're quite willing to 'pay' for what they want even in the presence of disruption; in fact, many of them prefer a disrupted environment as it either facilitates their purpose for patronizing Wikipedia, or at least provides them with added value.


That doesn't make them customers. That makes them masochists. ermm.gif


Hmmm.. Kelly seems to frequently assume that other people are like her. Some people really just want to improve articles, or add cats, or delete junk. Certainly there are some people who are just there for drama, but it's not worth taking their needs into consideration.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Thu 24th September 2009, 2:23pm
Post #135


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Friday @ Thu 24th September 2009, 9:07am) *
Some people really just want to improve articles, or add cats, or delete junk. Certainly there are some people who are just there for drama, but it's not worth taking their needs into consideration.
Wikipedia's governing process takes their needs into consideration, and in fact gives them undue weight (because they tend to be unusually vocal). You know all about this, because you exploit it on a regular basis.

It's my contention that the proportion of active Wikipedians who "really just want to improve articles, or add cats, or delete junk" is vanishingly small in comparison to those who are there to forward ideology, play the Wikipedia MMORPG, or play drama games. This is even more true when you consider the subset of Wikipedians who actively participate in site governance activities.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Thu 24th September 2009, 2:42pm
Post #136


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(Friday @ Thu 24th September 2009, 10:07am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 24th September 2009, 1:39pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 24th September 2009, 1:16am) *

I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.


Shappy is actually a lot wiser than people twice or thrice his age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shappy


Another tantrum? This makes him wise?


No, there's no tantrum. He called it a day and went on to the proverbial bigger and better. Shappy's contributions to WP have been waning for some time and dropped off completely by August 30. He pops in at Simple Wikipedia, but I suspect his WP days are behind him.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Thu 24th September 2009, 2:43pm
Post #137


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 24th September 2009, 12:07am) *

Wikipedia would be better off without Shalom's contributions. It's not really much of a question, and only Shalom would treat it as the "dumbest post on WR."

Aside from the fact that there are some spectacularly stupid posts at Der Revue, my post was spot on.

No one values what you did, Shalom. Apparently, you think you were a great contributor and that excuses all the disruption you caused.

All your silly raving and insults don't really change a damn thing about the reality of it all.

Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 99 (Israel) (T-H-L-K-D)

If Wikipedia would be better off without my contributions, get rid of my contributions. (I'm wondering how long it will take for this to get a "speedy keep"; I expect that most AFD regulars do want my contributions to stay.)

This post has been edited by Shalom: Thu 24th September 2009, 2:43pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Thu 24th September 2009, 2:50pm
Post #138


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 24th September 2009, 10:23am) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Thu 24th September 2009, 9:07am) *
Some people really just want to improve articles, or add cats, or delete junk. Certainly there are some people who are just there for drama, but it's not worth taking their needs into consideration.
Wikipedia's governing process takes their needs into consideration, and in fact gives them undue weight (because they tend to be unusually vocal). You know all about this, because you exploit it on a regular basis.


Undue weight? Now now...Friday is just big-boned. rolleyes.gif


QUOTE(Shalom @ Thu 24th September 2009, 10:43am) *

If Wikipedia would be better off without my contributions, get rid of my contributions. (I'm wondering how long it will take for this to get a "speedy keep"; I expect that most AFD regulars do want my contributions to stay.)


Shalom...turn off the computer and go outside. The sun is shining and interesting things are happening. Take advantage of the real world -- this juvenile mess is not worth getting upset over.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cedric
post Thu 24th September 2009, 3:39pm
Post #139


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 24th September 2009, 9:42am) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Thu 24th September 2009, 10:07am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 24th September 2009, 1:39pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 24th September 2009, 1:16am) *

I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.


Shappy is actually a lot wiser than people twice or thrice his age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shappy


Another tantrum? This makes him wise?


No, there's no tantrum. He called it a day and went on to the proverbial bigger and better. Shappy's contributions to WP have been waning for some time and dropped off completely by August 30. He pops in at Simple Wikipedia, but I suspect his WP days are behind him.

If so, good for him. Whenever this happens with a Teenage Mutant Wiki Admin™ or a Teenage Mutant Wiki Admin Wannabe™, I usually assume that they got a girlfriend or otherwise acquired a life.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymous editor
post Thu 24th September 2009, 4:13pm
Post #140


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon 4th Aug 2008, 6:21pm
Member No.: 7,398



QUOTE(Shalom @ Thu 24th September 2009, 10:43am) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 24th September 2009, 12:07am) *

Wikipedia would be better off without Shalom's contributions. It's not really much of a question, and only Shalom would treat it as the "dumbest post on WR."

Aside from the fact that there are some spectacularly stupid posts at Der Revue, my post was spot on.

No one values what you did, Shalom. Apparently, you think you were a great contributor and that excuses all the disruption you caused.

All your silly raving and insults don't really change a damn thing about the reality of it all.

Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 99 (Israel) (T-H-L-K-D)

If Wikipedia would be better off without my contributions, get rid of my contributions. (I'm wondering how long it will take for this to get a "speedy keep"; I expect that most AFD regulars do want my contributions to stay.)


More trolling from you. Wikipedia would be better off without you editing it now, and would have been better off had you never discovered the site. That doesn't mean anyone can go ahead and delete everything you've ever edited on Wikipedia, just like WR didn't want everything Guy/Poetlister and the rest of the socks posted deleted. Guy, of course, succeeded in deleting a lot of things, but just because he was a disruption and caused the site untold harm, doesn't mean they would go back and delete everything he ever wrote, because it would ruin countless threads.

Similarly, deleting everything you ever contributed is not feasible, and only you would suggest such a thing.

I don't see how this is difficult to understand. Your bad outweighs your good, but it's rather difficult to get articles deleted in any case, let alone when the article creator throws a tantrum. Several other people edited almost all of your articles. If you can find articles you created that no one else edited, by all means, tag them with a speedy template. I couldn't care less.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

9 Pages V « < 5 6 7 8 9 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th 10 14, 11:18am