DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) →Personal attacks: at ANI already |
B'er Rabbit (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
'''Who the hell are you to lecture me on what is "acceptable"? I never elected you to govern over me, nor to have any kind of moral authority over me. On the contrary, you were elected only by your fellow cronies". That is the fatal flaw that gives wikipedia its feudal, hierarchical character: No concept of "consent of the governed". I utterly resist and refuse your pretended, self-declared authority over me, so you know where to stuff it. In fact A-holes like you are the main reason I was referring to whe I said you are making Wikipedia unbearable for those who actually care, by throwing your weight and your personal opinions of what is "notable" around like they were made out of pure gold. You are a straight up ass hole, and you are the reason why I am leaving English wikipedia. You want to decree by fiat that the Amharic Wikipedia is not notable, because it is not important to you, even though it was demonstrated as important and notable to Wikimedia, Unicef, and the African Union.. And I bet you will win, get your way, have it deleted, have me blocked and chuckle to yourself all the way home about it. Go to hell. It doesn't matter if you have me blocked, because until you leave, I RESIGN from your pathetic pile of backwards self-important shit called "English Wikipedia", you major pig-headed DOUCHE of the world.''' {{unsigned|141.152.28.7}} |
'''Who the hell are you to lecture me on what is "acceptable"? I never elected you to govern over me, nor to have any kind of moral authority over me. On the contrary, you were elected only by your fellow cronies". That is the fatal flaw that gives wikipedia its feudal, hierarchical character: No concept of "consent of the governed", or of your maintaining their "confidence". I utterly resist and refuse your pretended, self-declared authority over me, so you know where to stuff it. In fact A-holes like you are the main reason I was referring to whe I said you are making Wikipedia unbearable for those who actually care, by throwing your weight and your personal opinions of what is "notable" around like they were made out of pure gold. You are a straight up ass hole, and you are the reason why I am leaving English wikipedia. You want to decree by fiat that the Amharic Wikipedia (which gets 10,000 hits a DAY per webtraffic stats) is not notable, because it is not important to you, even though it was demonstrated as important and notable to Wikimedia, Unicef, and the African Union.. And I bet you will win, get your way, have it deleted, have me blocked and chuckle to yourself all the way home about it. Go to hell. It doesn't matter if you have me blocked, because until you leave, I RESIGN from your pathetic pile of backwards self-important shit called "English Wikipedia", you major pig-headed DOUCHE of the world.''' {{unsigned|141.152.28.7}} |
||
I've asked for input by previously uninvolved people: [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:B'er Rabbit]]. You are welcome to present your view on this there. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
I've asked for input by previously uninvolved people: [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:B'er Rabbit]]. You are welcome to present your view on this there. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:32, 25 June 2009
Welcome!
Hello, B'er Rabbit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Mangwanani (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposed merger
You know, your recent comments have been, at best, offensive, and seemingly deliberately so. No one will "decide" the merger, only WP:CONSENSUS will do that. That consensus does not have to be absolute, though, it never has to be. So far, the only real reason I've seen you put forward, in all your comments, for keeping the separate group going is the very likely unreasonable possibility that, somehow, in the future, it might be functional. If you want to trust the development of the content to such a weak idea as that which might not be realized for several years to come, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, what will happen if the merger is approved is that the current project page will be kept, but the banner will redirect to the EO page and categories. If at some point in the future the group become active enough to be viable, the banner changes can be easily reversed.
And, for all your arguments, I had myself been the writer of 4 of the few DYKs that project has, and several other articles related to the project as well. I had been working on it as seriously as anyone prior to the blows to the head I received last year, and the subsequent seizures. I wanted as much as anyone to see that project work, but, right now, it isn't doing anything, and activity is the only real reason to keep any project active. Frankly, someone else could, on their own, propose that the project be deleted altogether. If they did, they might be successful. With a merger, all that will happen will be that the assessments will be redirected and the EO project take over the management. The OO project page, and categories and everything, will remain in place in the event the project ever gets enough interest to justify itself. That generally means ten active editors actively working on that content. Right now, I don't see that. And, yes, I'd prefer deactivation to deletion. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- What's offensive to me is that you are proposing to lump two groups together that have no more in common than Episcopalians and Mormons, and everything I am trying to say seems to fall on deaf ears like "Well we've decided we're just gonna do it anyhow, no matter what reasons there are". Would it be appropriate to lump in Episcopalians and Mormons projects if both groups were inactive, just because they are both from the same part of the world? No, I don't think so. What the two groups believe makes them very different. It makes no more sense to take two random groups that have the same word in the name and practically nothing else in common, very different beliefs, and it seems patronizing. Also most of the relationship between the two groups historically can be described as antagonistic. If there were no objections, I would say go right ahead. B'er Rabbit (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- And what is truly offensive to me is that you are falsely accusing me of this somehow being my doing. I already said that the Template:Eastern Christianity and Portal:Eastern Christianity existed before I created the project, didn't I? They were already grouped together before the project was formed, and by someone else's hand. Granted, additional templates for the OO churches can be and probably will be created, probably by me, as I'm good at that and one of the few who is willing to do so. Those templates can then provide easy links to the relevant content for any editors interested in developing the core content regarding the OO. I can only assume that you would want every individual Christian denomination out there to have its own group, by your comments. Well, realistically, that will never happen, given the sheer number of them. If you were aware of how and why projects are created, you would know it is to make it easier for interested parties to collaborate on the content. Right now, based on all the evidence, there is no collaboration being brought about by the existence of that project, and it thus could be easily deleted altogether. And there is a project which already, based on the pre-existing portal and template, covered the material before the separate OO project was created. Rather than thinking that anyone is trying to force a fit where there isn't one, it would be more accurate to say that an apparently ineffective scion project is being merged back into its parent. Maybe it wasn't a good fit, and I am willing to acknowledge that. Maybe you'd prefer the OO material not be merged into Eastern Christianity. If you do, please indicate as much, probably indicating that it would be merged back into the main Christianity WikiProject itself. I don't think anyone would object to that proposal, although it would make portal maintenance of the Eastern Christianity portal harder. Ultimately, the thing that would most gain by a merger would be the portal, and the more portals we can get to FP status, the more likely our material is to be seen. I think having the material noticed and used is really the main purpose of everything we do here, isn't it? John Carter (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- As I have said, you are clearly determined to have your own way regardless of any objections raised, so why do you even go through the charade of pretending to ask for input? B'er Rabbit (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- And, as I said, I was the one who requested the discussion. There is a fundamental principle of wikipedia at WP:AGF. Frankly, you are acting in clear violation of it. If you find it impossible to behave appropriately, then may I kindly urge you to remove yourself from the discussion, if that is the only way you can avoid acting contrary to policy and guidelines. Right now, your clearly inflammatory comments, and your apparent disregard for anything but your own opinion, is in no way helping anything, except in terms of helping others develop negative opinions of you. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I have said, you are clearly determined to have your own way regardless of any objections raised, so why do you even go through the charade of pretending to ask for input? B'er Rabbit (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Forcibly removing people from conversations, by criminalizing / stigmatizing them for expressing their opinions, is one route to "consensus", one that has always been favoured by those of your ilk. Just be prepared for the maximum amount of resistance, because there will be. B'er Rabbit (Briar Patch) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- And making false accusations such as the above is a violation of several behavioral guidelines, not that you have to date shown any interest in them of course. Your own failure to abide by even the most basic guidelines of good conduct is appalling. And, if nothing else, the fact that, after all this time, there have been no other comments should be grounds to indicate just how little, if any, attention or even notice the existing project page gets. Rather than continuing to throw about vacuous insults, perhaps you might better spend your time trying to tell anyone why a notice which has been in place for as long as that notice has, and gotten so little response, does not indicate that the page is, basically, dead. Also, and I realize that you don't seem to find policy or guidelines particularly important, please realize that a viable project, as per WP:PROJGUIDE, basically only makes sense if there are a number of "active editors". How many "active editors" can be demonstrated to be involved in a project with as little activity on its talk page, and as little interest as has so far been generated in the proposed merger? If there are no active editors, please tell me what possible reason there is for maintaining the separate project, something you have not to date done. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Forcibly removing people from conversations, by criminalizing / stigmatizing them for expressing their opinions, is one route to "consensus", one that has always been favoured by those of your ilk. Just be prepared for the maximum amount of resistance, because there will be. B'er Rabbit (Briar Patch) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What consensus? This is not a heavily edited article and there is almost no discussion on the talk page. If you don't agree, fine, we can discuss it on the talk page. But there is nothing wrong with normal editing and removing a section. Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit war warning
Please consider this an edit war warning. You are reverting a simple FactTag. I am one edit behind you, so you will cross the edit war line first. Please stop. History2007 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- ... and you're BOTH edit-warring whether you reach 3RR or not. Leave the FACT TAG on until you properly source the addition. Wikipedia relies on WP:RS, and not simply "information that can be easily found anywhere". Not also B'er Rabbit, that you're bordering on incivility in your edit-summaries - do not use them for violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, B'er Rabbit. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Despite being asked to drop the ad hominems and personal attacks twice, you continue to insert them in discussions, like here[1]. Please discuss articles, content, sources, ..., and stop with the personal remarks. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for more info on this. Fram (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Other example from yesterday from an unrelated discussion: [2]. This is unacceptable. Fram (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Who the hell are you to lecture me on what is "acceptable"? I never elected you to govern over me, nor to have any kind of moral authority over me. On the contrary, you were elected only by your fellow cronies". That is the fatal flaw that gives wikipedia its feudal, hierarchical character: No concept of "consent of the governed", or of your maintaining their "confidence". I utterly resist and refuse your pretended, self-declared authority over me, so you know where to stuff it. In fact A-holes like you are the main reason I was referring to whe I said you are making Wikipedia unbearable for those who actually care, by throwing your weight and your personal opinions of what is "notable" around like they were made out of pure gold. You are a straight up ass hole, and you are the reason why I am leaving English wikipedia. You want to decree by fiat that the Amharic Wikipedia (which gets 10,000 hits a DAY per webtraffic stats) is not notable, because it is not important to you, even though it was demonstrated as important and notable to Wikimedia, Unicef, and the African Union.. And I bet you will win, get your way, have it deleted, have me blocked and chuckle to yourself all the way home about it. Go to hell. It doesn't matter if you have me blocked, because until you leave, I RESIGN from your pathetic pile of backwards self-important shit called "English Wikipedia", you major pig-headed DOUCHE of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.28.7 (talk • contribs)
I've asked for input by previously uninvolved people: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:B'er Rabbit. You are welcome to present your view on this there. Fram (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)