UC Bill Gianoed, Down goes a developer? Options

[Hipocrite]

UC_Bill (T-C-L-K-R-D) has a short temper. He's also, I believe, a developer.

He was just blocked indef, email blocked cannot edit own talk page for venting on his talk page after getting in a fight with Bart Simpson fans.

A must read.

[Peter Damian]

This is what caused it:

I'm moving this article back to Nancy Cartwright (actor) and making Nancy Cartwright a redirect to that page. I'd rather Nancy Cartwright be a disambiguation page, but to minimize the possibility of further disruption and to give this discussion a more appropriate home, I think that's a good compromise for now. That way, no matter what happens with Nancy Cartwright, we can be sure that Nancy Cartwright (actor) will always work correctly, and the discussion can stay on Talk:Nancy Cartwright where it belongs. As for the value of two-article disambiguation pages, they let the reader (and editors) know that there is more than one person with that name, in a much more noticeable way than a hatnote. It makes it a lot easier to check that links are made to the correct article, since ones to an unqualified name will show up in the various "links to disambiguation pages" reports. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Please refrain from performing controversial moves without consensus.
2. Your proposed "compromise" contradicts our naming conventions; it's flat-out incorrect to redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)".
3 Your claimed advantage of "[letting] the reader (and editors) know that there is more than one person with that name" also is inconsistent with our naming guidelines, which state that the sole relevant concern is making it as easy as possible for readers to find the articles that they seek. Anyone seeking the philosopher's article and arriving at the actor's article will immediately know this (and be directed to the intended target). For those intending to view the actor's article, there is no issue; we have no mission to inform people that another person has the same name as the person whose article they seek (and yet, the hatnote accomplishes this quite well).
4. There's no reason why a bot cannot be set up to list only new links to the non-disambiguated title (thereby negating the other advantage that you cited above). —David Levy 21:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop, that proposal seems absolutely pointless. Note that in terms of page views, this Nancy Cartwright had 21119 views while the philosopher had 872. Please don't de-stabilize this article and ruin the FAC just to prove whatever ridiculous point you are trying to prove. If you want to do something useful, why don't you copyedit the article for me? -- Scorpion0422 21:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You're both morons. David Levy, you're the ONLY person with a problem with the move, so I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to. Scorpion, relatively popularity is meaningless. They both have the same name. Ergo, there should be a disambiguation page. Since neither of you seems to have a clue, I'm not going to waste my time here anymore. Good luck with your fan page, idiot. And good luck with your fascism, Levy. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody here isn't reading things properly. How could David Levy be the only one against the move when I clearly said I thought it was pointless? Okay, popularity is meaningless, what is the point in having Nancy Cartwright redirect to Nancy Cartwright (actor)? I'm glad you're not wasting your time any more, maybe you should try editing articles and improving rather than trying to move random pages then insulting people who oppose you. -- Scorpion0422 21:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit? You started with the insults, I'm just not taking crap from a stupid fanboy like you. If you actually looked at my edit history, you'd see that I do contribute articles, and unlike waste-of-space Levy, I also do regular maintenance work here like cleaning up categories and other things admins are supposed to do. Keep replying, I'm not wasting any effort "improving" this piece of crap article, but I'll be glad to call you names and point out how stupid you are, all day long. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nancy_Cartwright"

This man is a hero.

Amazingly, your sarcastic bullshit and superior attitude have inspired me to stop contributing to Wikipedia entirely. I've already deleted all the source code for the patch I'd been developing for the project (yes, I'm a developer) and I hope you feel all good about yourself with your smug attitude. Douche. All the admins here (with a few exceptions) should be strung up and ridiculed by people who actually have a life.

Yes, yes.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 25th March 2009, 2:14pm

[Bottled_Spider]

This is what caused it:

.... Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit?

This man is a hero.

Yes!!! Yes, he is. The small section, above, is enough in itself for that title to be bestowed upon him. Face it - you just can't beat a good "Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit?". You can't. I laughed until I stopped.

Drama rating : 9.7 / 10.