Why Prioryman AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChrisO hates WR so much? Options

[mbz1]

I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChriO hates WR so much?

Personally I regard WR as a cancerous wart on the anus of Wikipedia, dominated by a rabble of trolls, nuts and embittered banned editors. I appreciate others may think differently, though. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To me it is also interesting that Prioryman AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChrisO used the word "anus of Wikipedia". Could somebody please help me to understand what is "anus of Wikipedia". I mean I know what is anus of Prioryman AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChrisO, but my English is not good enough to understand what is "anus of Wikipedia", and if wikipedia has an anus, does it mean that wikipedia could have hemorrhoid too?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[carbuncle]

I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChriO hates WR so much?

You forgot AKA L'ecrivant (T-C-L-K-R-D) and of course Helatrobus (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

[mbz1]

I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChriO hates WR so much?

You forgot AKA L'ecrivant (T-C-L-K-R-D) and of course Helatrobus (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

I did not know about these two accounts. Interesting!
But still could somebody please explain to me what "anus of Wikipedia" means. I asked this question without sarcasm. I really never heard such expression, and do not know what it means. Thanks.

[Cla68]

I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChriO hates WR so much?

You forgot AKA L'ecrivant (T-C-L-K-R-D) and of course Helatrobus (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

I did not know about these two accounts. Interesting!
But still could somebody please explain to me what "anus of Wikipedia" means. I asked this question without sarcasm. I really never heard such expression, and do not know what it means. Thanks.

He is saying that WR emits feces and such foul waste.

Almost without exception the editors in Wikipedia who complain the loudest and most continuously about WR are agenda-driven POV-pushers who have had their dishonest agendas, or those of their friends, exposed in WR. More honest Wikipedia editors will usually say something along the lines of, "WR has a lot of garbage, but also sometimes makes a good point".

[thekohser]

He is saying that WR emits feces and such foul waste.

With all due respect, Charles... he's actually saying that Wikipedia (not Wikipedia Review) is a sort of living organism that takes in nutrients (editors and their content), digests them and becomes a stronger, more powerful organism. Of course, any organism that grows through consumption must also take a shit once in a while, to expel the unneeded by-products of the metabolic process.

Wikipedia's "anus", therefore, is where the unneeded by-products are expelled. I guess the anus would be a fleshy muscle composed of "Articles for deletion" and "Ban discussions" and pages reserved for "Jimbo breaking up with mistresses", if we were to take this personification the least bit seriously.

And he clearly said that Wikipedia Review is thus a cancerous wart on the anus of Wikipedia.

(Of course, a wart is a benign skin growth that is not subject to being cancerous, so his intelligence is rather questionable from the get-go.)

[mbz1]

He is saying that WR emits feces and such foul waste.

With all due respect, Charles... he's actually saying that Wikipedia (not Wikipedia Review) is a sort of living organism that takes in nutrients (editors and their content), digests them and becomes a stronger, more powerful organism. Of course, any organism that grows through consumption must also take a shit once in a while, to expel the unneeded by-products of the metabolic process.

Wikipedia's "anus", therefore, is where the unneeded by-products are expelled. I guess the anus would be a fleshy muscle composed of "Articles for deletion" and "Ban discussions" and pages reserved for "Jimbo breaking up with mistresses", if we were to take this personification the least bit seriously.

And he clearly said that Wikipedia Review is thus a cancerous wart on the anus of Wikipedia.

(Of course, a wart is a benign skin growth that is not subject to being cancerous, so his intelligence is rather questionable from the get-go.)

So in other words, he believes wikipedia needs its anus, anus is a good thing to have. It is needed "to expel the unneeded by-products of the metabolic process" , and WR that is a "cancerous" grow on that anus prevents it from working properly.
Thank you, Greg. Now I understood what he meant.