Dragonfly Sixtyseven - super shmuck Options

[A Horse With No Name]

. I would have felt sympathy over the death of his GF, but then I saw him ... continue to work on Wikipedia incoherently the
very day she died ...

Curious behavior.

I think the rest of your comment was distasteful, even if it's been over two years since her death.

I think what is truly distasteful is the concept of somebody who continues to play games on a website right after a loved one passes away.

This particular admin's obsession with his "tools" and punishing "banned" people clearly suggests a frayed relationship with reality.

[melloden]

. I would have felt sympathy over the death of his GF, but then I saw him ... continue to work on Wikipedia incoherently the
very day she died ...

Curious behavior.

I think the rest of your comment was distasteful, even if it's been over two years since her death.

I think what is truly distasteful is the concept of somebody who continues to play games on a website right after a loved one passes away.

This particular admin's obsession with his "tools" and punishing "banned" people clearly suggests a frayed relationship with reality.

Maybe it was his way of coping with the grief. Either way, your earlier comment wasn't necessary or a Wikipedia-relevant criticism.

[A Horse With No Name]

Either way, your earlier comment wasn't necessary or a Wikipedia-relevant criticism.

We're talking about someone who makes a big show about an emotional trauma, then goes online a few hours later to play games on Wikipedia and keeps up the game playing for days to follow. No matter how you slice it, this is not normal behavior. And considering this is an adult male in his 30s, it is really weird.

[mbz1]

Either way, your earlier comment wasn't necessary or a Wikipedia-relevant criticism.

We're talking about someone who makes a big show about an emotional trauma, then goes online a few hours later to play games on Wikipedia and keeps up the game playing for days to follow. No matter how you slice it, this is not normal behavior. And considering this is an adult male in his 30s, it is really weird.

He was born in 1967, so he's at least 44 now, and this is more than stupid deleting good articles only because they were written by a banned user.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Fri 27th January 2012, 4:13pm

[A Horse With No Name]

He was born in 1967, so he's at least 44 now...

No, he was not born in 1967. If this is correct, he is either 35 or 36 (depending when his birthday falls).

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Fri 27th January 2012, 5:40pm

[Fusion]

He was born in 1967, so he's at least 44 now...

No, he was not born in 1967. If this is correct, he is either 35 or 36 (depending when his birthday falls).

He says in the latest version that he was not born in 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=469155037

[mbz1]

He was born in 1967, so he's at least 44 now...

No, he was not born in 1967. If this is correct, he is either 35 or 36 (depending when his birthday falls).

He says in the latest version that he was not born in 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=469155037

You are right. But writing like he does with that "not" means he is even stranger than I thought he was.
A Horse With No Name, I'd like to ask you a question please. Let's say you are allowed back to wikipedia with the condition that the only thing you are allowed to do is writing new articles and responding posts at your own talk. Would have you agreed on these conditions? Thanks.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Fri 27th January 2012, 11:43pm

[A Horse With No Name]

A Horse With No Name, I'd like to ask you a question please. Let's say you are allowed back to wikipedia with the condition that the only thing you are allowed to do is writing new articles and responding posts at your own talk. Would have you agreed on these conditions? Thanks.

Wikipedia is promoted as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Enough said.