Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Peter Damian

This refers

I haven't really followed the careers of the newer ones climbing the ladder of success on Planet Wiki. Any suggestions for other would-be admins like 'Coldplay Expert' - examples of noxious and sick-making behaviour would be useful.

Perhaps we could draw up a shortlist for the WP:DICK awards.

Posted by: Number Six

Coldplay's myspace talkpage buddy Thejadefalcon (T-C-L-K-R-D) takes runner up in the slack-jawed and drooling competition.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Yes can we have some slack-jawed and drooly diffs please if possible to keep as amused.

Posted by: Malleus

Well, I found http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coldplay_Expert&diff=prev&oldid=335391051 self-centred saccharine nonsense quite vomit-inducing. "Oh no, I'll never be an admin now, I've lost all respect". How can you lose what you never had?

Posted by: Eva Destruction

I'm quite taken by the "This user knows that Nazi Germany is in no way assiciated with the real Germany" on CE's userpage. Presumably all the real Germans popped out to the shops, and when they weren't looking those sneaky imposters occupied Western Europe.

Posted by: cyofee

Maybe he just found out?

Posted by: everyking

He seems to be self-destructing due to some sockpuppetry allegation.

Posted by: Somey

Apparently, there's a script running under an account called Rick Bot (T-C-L-K-R-D) that maintains a page called Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls (T-H-L-K-D), though this isn't specifically mentioned on the Rick Bot user page. If I understand this correctly, any time a user places the "{{Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday}}" userbox on his/her user page, the page gets added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrator_hopefuls and this script adds the user to the list, and also checks for users who have had "successful" RfA's and places them in a separate part of the list - in the third (last) section. (Since the last section of the list has nobody in it, presumably one of the first things all newly-minted admins do is remove that "would like to be an admin someday" template from their user pages.)

Anyway, there aren't really a lot of familiar names on that list. I recognized Promethean (T-C-L-K-R-D) from a recent Malleus-related dust-up, and Moe Epsilon (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and of course the inevitable Razorflame (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I also remember Dendodge (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who was one of those who ran afoul of Mr. Friday's "oppose all minors" rule on RfA voting, and a couple others look sort of familiar... All in all, though, nobody really leaps out. That probably just means that the vast majority of wannabe admins have finally twigged to the "head-down, shut up, avoid controversy" route to WP adminship.

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: Trick cyclist

Perhaps he could explain then why there are former Nazis, involved in the occupation of Denmark, still living in Germany?

There is a story "The Groaning Hinges of the World" by R A Lafferty that suggests that every so often various places in the world such as Germany flip over and swap the people living there for subterranean people. Maybe hes read that story.

Posted by: Emperor

I was pretty unimpressed with him in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#Congratulations_revisionists. I get the feeling that he's just very young, and perhaps needs to read more books and go to school a bit longer. I don't think he's a bad kid, just out of his league (or in his league, if you consider the crowd he's running with).

Posted by: Juliancolton

Dendodge was a shame. I nominated him... eight months ago? And it failed largely for age/maturity reasons. He's now a sysop on en.wikinews having passed RfA unanimously and hasn't had any issues.

I still think he would be an excellent admin on en.wiki, but I don't think he's very active anymore.

Posted by: SDJ

I think I might just drop that template on my userpage, just to see what happens.

Posted by: Number Six

Can do, easily, if anyone's really interested. Lotta time to dig through "i am nt wrthy" crap and varous kiss-assery. And since Coldplay's clearly the Princess...

Posted by: IShadowed

While working with {{helpme}}'s, one certainly runs across myspacers and newbies who have no clue what they were doing. However, I think we all forget sometimes to be patient... Of course I understand the difference between a newbie vandal, and a newbie myspacer, but I believe that many of us just become overwhelmed and begin biting.

Again, I'm not saying Coldplay Expert hasn't been on my nerves, and I was especially appalled regarding the barnstar entitled "The Helping Random Idiots Who Can't Use Wikipedia" , given to him/ her by one of his/ her myspacing friends. No calling newbies idiots... please.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&oldid=336632865#Statement. Quite why Malleus is the bad guy here, I'm not quite sure.

Posted by: EricBarbour

That is not "building an encyclopedia". That is shit.

I wonder how many broken articles could be fixed by those little children,
instead of wasting several hours on this "argument"?

Malleus, you'd better not give in to any of them, esp. not CE.

Have you seen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Coldplay_Expert&diff=336582585&oldid=336581018 on his userpage today?

Posted by: Malleus

It's fashionable.


As if. Yeah, I saw that earlier. What amuses me is that these planks get upset when they feel insulted, but believe they nevertheless have the right to insult others. For myself, I don't care what epithets someone I've never met throws my way. Sticks and stones and all that. In fact I rarely care about the epithets that someone I have met throws my way, unless I've got a reason to respect their opinion.

Posted by: Alison

*flounce*

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

Serious point; I think the main problem with a lot of the younger editors is that they are not used to internet sites where things can get nasty. All these newer sites like MySpace, FaceBook and Wikipedia Review have this friendly culture - even 4chan seems to be friendly enough within its membership, even if they are targeting other sites they are doing it from a support orientated network. Some older editors come from the more "Wild West" days of the hindernets - from places where the infighting was part of the "game", and flamewars was just another way of passing the time.

When some of the newer generation of websurfers come across the old stylee types there is quite some clash of culture; we r not ur M8's, and we use proper English, too. It is ironic, also, that on this site where there is legit complaint about the old fashioned internet ethos - take no prisoners - that ensures that noobies often get discouraged because they can't take the heat, that some of the more "txtfrenz" orientated newcomers are ridiculed for their utterances.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Who linked him to this discussion Malleus? The only other times I've seen that "highlight" function used is when Ottava made links to prove evil conspiracies.

Judging from his reaction, I get the impression this might be his first real long peep here (which would be a rude introduction indeed!)

Posted by: Eva Destruction

That "highlight" function comes up automatically when you run a keyword search; my guess would be one of his IRC buddies (not mentioning any names, Julian) tipped him off that he was mentioned here and he ran a search on his name. Quite why my calling him "slack-jawed and drooling" doesn't warrant a mention, but Malleus calling him "saccharine" has him reaching for the Big Red Drama Button, I leave as an exercise for the student. (Agree that it's probably his first look here - "there's a bunch of people who don't love Jimbo!!!")

BTW Coldplay Expert, since I assume you're reading this you might want to http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Coldplay_Expert&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia before you start whining when people accuse you of being a waste of other people's time.

Posted by: Nerd

You guess very, very wrong my dear. If you're not mentioning names, consider actually not mentioning any, particularly when you get it wrong. Maybe you're just inventing this situation to trash IRC.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

He said "the real Germany," and he has a point. Much of what gave Germans a sense of national pride (as Das Land der Dichter und Denker - the land of poets and thinkers) was suppressed or destroyed under the Nazis. Take, for example, the works of Heinrich Heine. And although it may seem like an overly technical point, Hitler was not German. He was Austrian.

There was a useful study of one facet of the issue in the film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0260414/.

Posted by: Somey

Interesting observation, but the one thing I would have to point out is that with MySpace and Facebook, you don't really have any sort of gamesmanship based on the goal of achieving admin status. (You might get a little of that on WR I suppose, but not much.) On Usenet, there was quite a bit of that, and these days you see it on Freenode IRC channels and such. Three guesses as to which of these tend to be associated more with Wikipedia...

In general though, not all kids are psychologically rooted in self-esteem-generation delusionalism, but it does seem that a lot of kids these days wish that life can be as simple as fish swimming round in a barrel, when they've got the gun.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Haha. Nice use of the lyrics to Prospekt's March. But seriously, why attack me? Im only one in 10,000,000 users. How did I screw up this bad to get attention here? Was it my stupid username or something?

Posted by: Somey

"Attack" isn't the word I'd use, but admin-bashing is a time-honored tradition here, and it looks like you want to be an admin, so I'd assume some of us just wanted to get a little "head start."

Then again, if you've now decided that you really don't want to be an admin, then maybe these "attacks" are now unwarranted, at least in retrospect?

Posted by: EricBarbour

Also, Mr. Coldplay, I might also point out that your friend Thejadefalcon (T-C-L-K-R-D)
is quite a poor excuse for a Wikipedia editor.

All he does is edit Xbox game articles and argue with people on their talkpages.

That would be okay, except that Wikipedia suffers from a tremendous oversupply of
such guys. It's supposed to be an "encyclopedia" for general knowledge, not an
encyclopedia for Xbox 360 games only. Nor is it supposed to be a vandalism-reversion
game.

A good WP editor's http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Thejadefalcon&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia would have a large red section (article edits), and a
smaller pink section (user talk page). Jade has just the opposite, okay? Not good.

Want to be an admin? Start by mentoring him. Get him to fix some of the many, many
bad articles, instead of just sucking up to Xeno and removing vandalism.

(Probably wasting my time. "But that's no fun!!")

Posted by: Somey

I wasn't going to say this originally, but I'd probably be remiss if I didn't point out that your choice of username was genuinely terrible.

Moreover, in all fairness, it could be said that just as vandalism is a recruitment tool for Wikipedia, admin-bashing (and by extension, admin-wannabe-bashing) is a form of recruitment tool for us here at WR, helping us keep our registration numbers up - and that it does seem to have worked in your case.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Wow, he has more user talk edits than I did, and I was never much of a content editor. What the hell is he doing, using Wikipedia as a social networking site?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

To be fair, we also didn't have to think about things like Columbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=336768112#Possible_threat_against_school_by_User:124.176.96.213_at_Wycliffe_Christian_School), or the various other instances of bad blood on the web leading to spilled blood off the web. Takes the fun out of flame warring.

Makes you wonder if there's any correlation between the number of friends you have on Facebook and the number of ops you have on Wikipedia.

Welcome to WR, Coldplay

Posted by: Malleus

I thought there was some age limit to membership here? Coldplay appears to be only 15.

Posted by: Somey

I checked his user & talk pages, but didn't see anything resembling an age declaration...?

(Addendum) Okay, I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/Coldplay_Expert_%282%29 where he admits to being a "minor," but in the USA that just means he's under 18, not under 16... His propensity for spelling mistakes tends to suggest younger rather than older, but without something more definitive, I guess I'm inclined to not worry about it.

Posted by: Nerd

Every time Malleus mentioned it, he never denied it. It could be seen as evidence.

Posted by: Malleus

He has claimed on wikipedia to be 15, not 16 until April 3. Can't be bothered to go looking for where though. Isn't there some question about age that is supposed to be answered honestly when members register here? Why was JulianColton suspended last year?

Posted by: Trick cyclist

So today's Germany is still not "the real Germany"? After over 60 years they haven't restored it?

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Not once did I ever say that. I said that Nazi Geramn and Germany are two diffrent governments. But there are those who seem to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AColdplay_Expert&action=historysubmit&diff=336417488&oldid=336335359 And I must admit, have an admin called "Coldplay Expert" on wikipedia is probably not a good idea for public relations. But I never did like my name anyway. I just never bothered to change it because I could'nt think of anything else.



Malleus, it was 13 years old, not 15.

Posted by: Somey

Right - the rule is that you can register here if you're 13, 14, or 15, and as long as we don't find out how old you are, all is well. We don't go actively looking for that information beyond viewing user pages and such on WP, but if someone brings it to our attention (including links to off-site material) and the facts are essentially indisputable, then that means a suspension for however long it is until the person's 16th birthday.

We keep meaning to spell that out explicitly somewhere, but of course, spelling it out explicitly would probably just get us into even more trouble!

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

I don't really care if im suspended. To be honest, after reading this thread, I hate this place...

Posted by: RMHED

Quite right too!

This is no place for a fine upstanding young Wikipedian such as yourself.

Why not do some serious buttsnorkeling on Jimmy's talkpage instead. Go on you know you want to.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

In case you missed the last page and a half, im not an upstanding wikipedian. Rather, the opposite. Thanks though...

Posted by: Malleus

My mistake, sorry.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

What??? You were wrong??? And you apologized??? Who are you and what have you done to the real Malleus?

Posted by: Malleus

I always apologise when I've made a mistake. It just doesn't happen that often that I do.

But more seriously, don't you think it woud be a good idea to take your mentor's advice, and stop fighting a fight you can't possibly win?

Posted by: RMHED

Multiple criticism on Wikipedia Review almost certainly means you're a fine upstanding Wikipedian.

Posted by: Malleus

Perhaps sometimes, but not this time.

Posted by: RMHED

That depends on how you're defining "fine upstanding Wikipedian".

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Im going to have to agree with Malleus here. I have so real and valid issues that I need to fix. And while they were presented to me in a rude way here, it has actually opened up my eyes. And yes Maleus, I will follow the advice of Julian.

Posted by: Malleus

Good. Then we can perhaps close this rather unpleasant chapter now.

I mean you no ill will Coldplay, but the purpose of wikipedia, at least to my understanding, is to build a free encylopedia, not to make friends.

Posted by: RMHED

Good Christ you really are a naive twat aren't you.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

I know that we are all here to build an encyclopedia. In fact when I joined, that was what I planned to do. But I seemed to have gotten off topic in my work. (Hense the large pink spot in my editing pie chart)

Posted by: Malleus

Better than than just a twat like you.


We're none of us perfect, we just do the best we can as we see it. Let's put this behind us now.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Fine by me

Posted by: EricBarbour

Ahem. That's "Drunken twat".

Oh god, this thread is sooo inspiring, it's making me all teary-eyed!
To watch a 13-year-old boy being beaten up by disgruntled Wikipedia admins!!

Just explain to CE what he's supposed to do on Wikipedia, and leave him be.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

While I'm not sure what I hope to gain by jumping in, how is being a naive twat preferable to being a plain old twat?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Better twatitudational excuses, man, better excuses.

Posted by: Wikicrusher2

Can someone move/delete this drivel?

Posted by: Malleus

I'm not a wikipedia admin, and never will be. I'm happy to beat up anyone, regardless of "status", age, or creed.


If you don't like it, don't read it.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Um..Im not 13.



Malleus, were'nt you an admin at one point? What happened?

Posted by: Nerd

No, he never was. He tried twice, I recall but failed to pass.

Posted by: Number Six

There are those who have a preference for naive twats.

Posted by: Somey

Would there be any point in simply asking you if you're under 16, then? Or more to the point, if someone looked hard enough, would they eventually find something on Wikipedia that would lead most people to make that conclusion?

Posted by: Juliancolton

He should be though. Malleus is about the last person I can imagine using the bit irresponsibly.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

This age thing seems so arbitrary. Maybe it should be tied to maturity metrics like virginity, belief in Santa Claus, preference for wine coolers over beer...

Posted by: Malleus

I made a few powerful enemies early on and it went downhill from there.

Posted by: Somey

If only!

Age-based cutoffs for things like drinking and driving and (ahem) sex are obviously flawed and fail to take individual differences into account, but society develops these kinds of things for a reason, and IMO that reason is basic human nature. Obviously if you ask a 14-year-old if he wants to be able to drink and drive and... well, you know with impunity, he's going to say "yes," right? And you can't do thorough psychological evaluations on every one of them just for purposes like that... it's just one of those concessions to practicality and realism that make modern society what it is - a complete catastrophe to be sure, but it's a consistent catastrophe at least, for the most part.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Okay, I promise to get right on that sarcasm emoticon as soon as I finish up with my better mousetrap! Just be patient.

Posted by: Somey

Well, I knew you were being sarcastic, I just don't want people to think we're completely unreasonable. Most of us do (believe it or not) recognize that there are kids under the age of 16 who are, in many (if not all) ways, more mature, sensible, and responsible than adults of all sorts of ages. That includes at least two or three who have registered WR accounts... But it's obviously a qualitative judgment, and any evidence you might find to support it in any given case might be false, etc., etc.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

So true. For example im sure that Julian is not stupid enough to drink and drive. Or any of the other things mentioned above. But society seems to group all minors as being complete idiots and sex adicts that, if given a beer and car keys, would be dead by midnight. There are a lot of exeptions though. And how did this thread go from bashing me to talking about minors with beer and cars?

Posted by: Eva Destruction

This is not a thread about you; this is a thread containing a couple of mentions of you, which is itself a sub-thread of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28027&hl= containing one mention of you.

This is going to sound patronizing, and it's honestly not meant to be; you might want to have more of a read around this site to get a feel for it. WR is neither a slightly-more-rowdy subforum of Wikipedia, nor the Evil Attack Site some of the WP regulars try to paint it as; it's a site dedicated to discussing ways to prevent and ways to mitigate the damage caused by the currently seriously malfunctioning Wikipedia experiment, which has gone from being a well-intentioned experiment run by a few nerds to being a source of defamation and misinformation so powerful that it's having a genuine and noticeable corrosive effect on the world's media.

One of the key issues in that is the discussion of the pros and cons of the Wikimedia Foundation's almost unique decision to allow children unrestricted access to positions of authority in which they're obliged to make serious ethical and legal decisions (often on extremely sensitive issues, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Rorschach_test_images, the ethics of a charitably-funded educational institution maintaining http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex_positions, or the appropriate way to handle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard). Many people feel that people below the age of legal responsibility should not be taking decisions of this nature, and that allowing them to do so has serious moral and legal implications for the adults involved.

It's a perennial discussion, and one that's impossible to have on Wikipedia itself due to the over-zealous enforcement of the "civility policy". (Anyone questioning the status quo on Wikipedia is likely to be accused of "personal attacks", under Wikipedia's unique interpretation of the phrase, and summarily blocked). Consequently, WR is the only place where the discussion can be held reasonably in a forum read by those able to have an influence on Wikipedia itself, and you'll find that this is one of those discussions which is raised regularly here.

Despite its reputation, Wikipedia Review actually has a considerably higher level of debate than Wikipedia itself, and I for one hope you're not blocked without good cause; until the next generation of Wikipedia users, who haven't yet had time to realize the downsides of the project, get involved in the debate, then the artificial "us-and-them" mentality will continue. Just remember, this isn't Wikipedia, and differing views are allowed; just be prepared to justify any claim you make.

Posted by: Somey

Well, I can see you're definitely a good fit for Wikipedia in terms of using strawman arguments, at least...


We were trying to figure out if you should be suspended for being under 16, remember?

I should say that if you are under 16, and you've said your piece already and don't intend to become a WP critic in the immediate future, the honorable & proper thing to do (as a would-be WP admin, natch) would probably be to admit it now rather than be seen as a deliberate rule-breaker - even if the rule is stupid and the site whose rule it is tends to be hostile to your overall interests. If you're 15, April isn't that far away, and I can set the suspension to end pretty much right on time.

If you're 16, then what Eva says above is far more applicable than anything I've just stated, of course.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

More applicable even if you're not... you don't have to be registered to read most of the on-topic forums in any case, and if you're interested (positively ornegatively) in Wikipedia, there's good reading here.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

As Somey is no doubt fed up with hearing from me, I think WR is badly damaged by allowing the nuts to post in the publicly-viewable threads; I can post "if you hate Wikipedia, WR is the place to discuss how to destroy it, and if you love Wikipedia, WR is the place to discuss how to rescue it" sermons like the ones above until the cows come home, but when people come here to see for themselves, they run into one of the usual suspects and go back thinking "yes, that reputation for being full of whackos is justified". Wikipedia has the same problem, of course, in that people only notice the problem admins and don't notice the "good" editors quietly trying to steer the trainwreck back onto the tracks (and only notice people's "problem" areas; I'm sure if you went through Slim or Shanky's Wikipedia posts, 99% would be non-controversial), but Wikipedia has the excuse of not having a viable moderation or tarpitting system to hide the nutcases from public view without blocking them altogether.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Well the question is, "are you turning 16 in April or 17?" (And did'nt it say under 13, not under 16?) You can go ahead and suspend me if you want. I have no intrest in bashing the fith most viewed site on the web. And what makes you think that Im good at strawman arrguments? What I said is true.

Posted by: Somey

I explained that http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28039&view=findpost&p=214583, but I'd have to say you just answered the question.


You said, "society groups all minors as being complete idiots and sex adicts (sic) that, if given a beer and car keys, would be dead by midnight."

Do you really think that isn't a fairly obvious strawman argument about society's treatment of minors?

Posted by: Juliancolton

What kind of argument is that? Society, aside from a few substantial restrictions, is now quite tolerant of minors. Some people on Wikipedia believe that minors aren't suitable for adminship, but really, a few people on a website aren't representative of the real world...

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Maybe my view is based off of where I live. And it was'nt an argument but a statment. Sorry if im wrong.... Im just makeing a fool of myself here. I'll stop.

Posted by: Somey

In a Shaker community?


OK.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

What the heck is a Shaker?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Don't stop! Hey, consider yourself at home! Consider yourself part of the family! We've taken to you so strong, it's clear we're going to get along.

Just a word of advice: don't knock Malley (he's ultra cool) and don't knock Julian (he smokes Dunhill Reds, which is also cool). If you must go on the attack, remember that there is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad




This is a Shaker:

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

I meant im going to stop makeing myself look like an idiot (If I can).

Posted by: Somey

Look it up - it's not all that bad an article, really: Shakers (T-H-L-K-D)

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Um...no. I don't live in a Shaker community. Just a redneck one with a touch of Northern Virginian liberalism....

Posted by: Somey

That's pretty much where I'm from, but I'm willing to assume most people aren't going to view your attitudes as typical.

Still, I can see how you might cause people a certain amount of frustration. Good luck on your RfA!

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Uh..was that sarcastic? Im not going up for one! I would never even nominate myself!

Posted by: Eva Destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AColdplay_Expert&action=historysubmit&diff=318083367&oldid=317928719

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

Have you taken a look at my userpage recently?

Posted by: wikademia.org

the word on the street is that rollback is a gateway bit. just be careful human, that is all i am saying.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

What?

Posted by: wikademia.org

history repeats itself unless ...

i dunno.. if we don't forget history, then are we doomed to repeat it? oh how these existential quandries...


no. be an admin! donate all your time to the Wikimedia Foundation. Do it for the poor children in Africa... do it to cure poverty, disease, and starvation. Encyc.org.

Posted by: Coldplay Expert

I never said that I don't want to be one. I just not aiming for it any time soon. I still have a lot of stuff to do before even being admin coached! Don't experct to see [[Wikipedia:Request for Adminship/Coldplay Expert]] to become a blue link any time soon.

Posted by: wikademia.org

lol. ok.

Posted by: Somey

Three months, five at the outside...

Posted by: radek

*Sigh*. That's about as clear cut example of unconcious POV bias as one could get. Of course this being WR, rather than Wikipedia, yes, I'm being somewhat pedantic.

Posted by: Cedric

*sigh* Yep. Out there in the forest killing boars.

Posted by: SDJ

I think several people have probably already watchlisted it, for the day it DOES turn blue.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Wouldn't it be neat if you could earn Wiki-points by killing bores? Or at least shooting them? Beback would be so full of arrows he'd have to apply as WP's St. Sebastian.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

Hahaha. Take a look at him getting shredded in this half-assed ANI thread he started (not that his buddies actually bothered to read his utter devastation when they started circle-jerking).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#Proposed_Block.2FTopic_Ban_of_User:SuaveArt

He's under 16 btw, and he was whining on Juliancolton's talk page that he got banned from WR for being underage but his account is still logged in (and apparently he's pissed about it.) Must seriously have no life, poor kid.

Posted by: Somey

Well, who wouldn't be?

I believe the "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=Login&CODE=06" link fixes that problem, but if not, I'm told that the "Delete all Coldplay MP3's from iTunes" method works equally well.

I tried listening to the first few tracks of X&Y the other day, but it seems a little less inspiring for me now, for some reason...

Posted by: carbuncle

Poor kid, indeed. I have no idea about what he does on WP, but I got the impression that he came away from this thread thinking that he had gotten helpful advice on how to be a better Wikipedian (and future admin). I fear that he lacks the wisdom to distinguish WP from real life. That kid needs to find some better role models...

Posted by: RMHED

Oh The http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Bl4BnU_NI turn to brown. Just ask Mally.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Oh, foo, we're great role models. Hey, someone give the kid a cigarette and a whiskey.

Posted by: Somey

I think we should all remember that hundreds of years in the future, there could be computers looking for life on Earth. (And not finding any.)

Don't fight for the wrong side...

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Jesus said that the meek will inherit the Earth. Pierre Boulle had a more unusual scenario.

Posted by: RMHED

The meek will get fucked up the ass, the direct marketeers will inherit the earth, but when they get the ground rent they'll have wished they hadn't.

Posted by: Malleus

Ask me what?

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

Yeah but they didn't capital gains tax in those days, not to mention how much the Co-op charges for funerals.