PaoloNapolitano : It's my turn now, PaoloNapolitano takes me to AN/I Options

[Zoloft]

PaoloNapolitano continues his crusade against Wikipedia Review by taking me, a mere mouse, to the dramaboards.

Result? People accuse me of being less than collegial. Well, maybe. I'm willing to listen to criticism. I'll use less vinegar and more buzz words next time. Wikipedians love buzz words!

PaoloNapolitano: join us here and see we're not all evil.

[mbz1]

Interesting

Dear Jimbo, Wikipedia Review, a website you most likely know what is about, has been in focus for a period of time now. Several users who are banned or blocked from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons use the website to attack our editors. But the main problem is that also several users who are still active at Wikipedia use the page for that purpose. Would you consider making an official statement about Wikipedia Review, as I believe that this page has no positive effect on our community and the sole purpose is to harass us. Many users who use Wikipedia Review link to their Wikipedia accounts, so their posts to WR are linked to their WP account. Do you feel that a personal attack directed at Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor from such a WR user would be blockable on WP? Sincerly, PaoloNapolitano 09:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[The Joy]

Interesting

Dear Jimbo, Wikipedia Review, a website you most likely know what is about, has been in focus for a period of time now. Several users who are banned or blocked from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons use the website to attack our editors. But the main problem is that also several users who are still active at Wikipedia use the page for that purpose. Would you consider making an official statement about Wikipedia Review, as I believe that this page has no positive effect on our community and the sole purpose is to harass us. Many users who use Wikipedia Review link to their Wikipedia accounts, so their posts to WR are linked to their WP account. Do you feel that a personal attack directed at Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor from such a WR user would be blockable on WP? Sincerly, PaoloNapolitano 09:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PaoloNap...tack_Protection

[Somey]

Indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PaoloNap...tack_Protection

Well, this is just terrible. I know English probably isn't his first language and he's been living in Norway for a long time, but it's an English language encyclopedia-like website - can't he come up with better sentence constructions than these?

Advocating the removal of personal attacks and outing of personal information on third-party websites independent of Wikipedia

Talk about dangling participles. They're advocating the outing of personal information? That's not even correct subject-verb agreement. You don't "out" personal information, you "out" actual people. The information is how you achieve your goal of "outing," assuming you're the sort of person who does that sort of thing.

Provide support for editors who have been the victims of such attacks including helping to sustain the editor's motivation for editing Wikipedia

The attacks have included helping to sustain the editor's motivation for editing WP? Sure, that's a particularly dastardly form of attack, but (I'm guessing) not from his perspective.

Advocate the creation of policies which grant administrators the right to block users making personal attacks and outing personal information about Wikipedia users on third-party websites in cases where the Wikipedia account of the poster is tied to the third-party website account of the user, or, if the user has self-identified as a Wikipedia user.

Oh, come on - now he's just laughing at us. We're supposed to read this? Who does he think we are, a bunch of idiots? Show some respect!

Identifying and tracking users whose editing of third-party websites shows an intent to damage Wikipedia and its users and reporting it to Wikipedia.

Okay, better - there's no dangling participle, though the last bit does look suspiciously like a run-on, not to mention completely unnecessary - what are they gonna do, identify and track users and then keep it all to themselves? That wouldn't even be totally hypocritical, putting aside the whole revenge-motive factor.

What kind of website are these people running? Someone should give this fellow a stern warning of some kind, not to mention grammar lessons.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Provide support for editors who have been the victims of such attacks including helping to sustain the editor's motivation for editing Wikipedia

The attacks have included helping to sustain the editor's motivation for editing WP? Sure, that's a particularly dastardly form of attack, but (I'm guessing) not from his perspective.

That's clearly not what he means, but his syntax is vague so he's to blame if misunderstandings arise.

Edit: it would be slightly better, but not ideal, to say "Provide support, including helping to sustain the editor's motivation for editing Wikipedia, for editors who have been the victims of such attacks."

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[melloden]

Do none of the Wikipediots realize he's trolling them?

"Paolo" is obviously a sock of someone stupid and unsophisticated, I think.

[carbuncle]

Do none of the Wikipediots realize he's trolling them?

"Paolo" is obviously a sock of someone stupid and unsophisticated, I think.

WP seems to love and nurture trolls. I can see no other reason for the so-called "reference boards" to exist.

If "Paolo" is a trolling sockpuppet, I'm sure it will come out eventually. Or sooner. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)