Content deleted Content added
No more tears (*SCNR*) |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{User|Dabljuh}} |
{{User|Dabljuh}} |
||
[[image:Nomoretears.jpg|thumb|right|Maybe you should switch your shampoo?]] |
|||
Are we having fun yet? [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
Are we having fun yet? [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 06:39, 13 January 2006
Hoping against hope that this doesn't have to go too far, but... Dabljuh (talk · contribs)
Are we having fun yet? Dabljuh 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- 04:55, December 16, 2005: "You may fool the regular fucktard here that easily. I want arguments. ... I want real arguments why circumcision is good, other than "I have studies that..." I want a priori, theoretical, rational arguments why circumcision would be medicinally beneficial, as well as why it would preferrably be done on infants rather than consenting adults. No weaseling around, I demand the answers, now!"
- 15:16, December 16, 2005: "Since you continously fail to provide any argument pro (infant) circumcision, I make you an ultimatum: Argue with me, convince me, or I will add both a disputed and an npov flag to the article's header."
- 05:01, January 9, 2006: "Screw prudes"
- 02:58, December 17, 2005: "As a side note, just stating the obvious and concluding the not so obvious (which is what every good argument does) doesn't count as Original Research." (demonstrates misunderstanding - not a vio itself)
- Instead of trying to come to consensus with other editors, engages in massive rewrites, which are reverted by 3 different editors. Despite being discouraged from doing so, forges ahead with plan to completely rewrite article via a fork that matches his own view at Circumcision/Dabljuhs version, misidentifying consensus version at various times as "Jakew's version".
- Four editors advise against rewrite in Talk:Circumcision#Title Change and Talk:Circumcision#Article Overhaul. Further commentary at Talk:Circumcision#Consensus?.
- 02:13, January 7, 2006: Describes user as a 'lunatic' (note - also demonstrates assumption of bad faith)
- 07:32, January 12, 2006: In response to (requested) criticism: "I'm not going to let me being filibustered by fringe view POV pushers."
- 21:33, January 8, 2006: (likens other editors to former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
- 02:09, January 11, 2006: "You have to be aware that you yourself may well be biased. On your user page, you describe yourself as jewish. ... User:Jakew is not jewish, but I have already attempted to explain to him where his incredible bias, that borders on lunacy, comes from."
- 02:47, January 11, 2006: (likens editor to Adolf Hitler)
- 09:35, January 11, 2006: "Didn't mean you. I was referring to the Jakew, Jayjg, Benami bunch mentioned in #consensus?. You're certainly all sane otherwise"
- 19:25, January 12, 2006: "Jake, seriously, stop worrying and take a wikibreak, you know why. This here is just distracting you from your real life problems"
Questionable contribs
- Proposes lobotomizing so-called "Circumcision advocates" [1]
- 01:57, January 9, 2006: "I also ommitted the annoying "uncircumcised vs intact" part, because really, I couldn't give a shit." (arguably not the right attitude)
- "WP:NOR. Not that I am particularly fond of that policy as it is too often used to prevent unpopular information from entering the Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. Everyone can edit and that policy necessarily compromises the integrity of the information in the "encyclopedia". It is by its very nature a place of public debate, an open forum, with the goal of collecting and structuring information in an easily accessible form. The policies of wikipedia however do not reflect this nature of the project, but attempt to force it into being an encyclopedia rather than a place for debate and truth finding." (emph. added. this is a fundamental problem)
- (pretends to have been converted in his POV) See continuing discussion