Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Wikipedia Annex _ Why Prioryman AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChrisO hates WR so much?

Posted by: mbz1

I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_03 AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_10#Questions_for_ArbCom_regarding_Prioryman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=463713137&oldid=463711486

QUOTE
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?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 12:19am) *

I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_03 AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_10#Questions_for_ArbCom_regarding_Prioryman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=463713137&oldid=463711486
You forgot AKA L'ecrivant (T-C-L-K-R-D) and of course Helatrobus (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 4:07am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 12:19am) *

I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_03 AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_10#Questions_for_ArbCom_regarding_Prioryman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=463713137&oldid=463711486
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.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 5:46am) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 4:07am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 12:19am) *

I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_03 AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_10#Questions_for_ArbCom_regarding_Prioryman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=463713137&oldid=463711486
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".

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 11:56pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 5:46am) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 4:07am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 12:19am) *

I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_03 AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_10#Questions_for_ArbCom_regarding_Prioryman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=463713137&oldid=463711486
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".


You're giving him way too much credit. He just heard the metaphor "a of X" somewhere and is parroting it here because he thinks it makes him sound cool - of course he doesn't even know how to properly use this metaphor (I was wondering wth he meant as well).


Posted by: Ottava

If Wikipedia was going to be taken seriously, it needs to stop letting people restart under new names. There is a clear "clean start" policy that says you cannot return to your own ways, edit under the same areas, continue the same disputes, but every single one of these people violate it and should be banned as such. It is blatant socking and yet people are allowing.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 6:12am) *

If Wikipedia was going to be taken seriously, it needs to stop letting people restart under new names.
It already does -- selectively. There is no rule at WP that is not enforced selectively, depending on who the alpha dogs are at any given moment.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 12:56am) *

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.)

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 5:45pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 12:56am) *

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.