Yes, this [1] was an obvious imposter, most likely the AfricaTruth/AfricanTruth person [2].
I'll leave you with a puzzle. Here are three recent statements made on Wikipedia. One comes from a respected admin who's notable enough to have a biographical article, another from a famous lawyer who likewise has a biographical article, and one was the statement that got an old Irish man indefinitely banned as a menace to Wikipedia. See if you can match them up without cheating.
What makes one worse than the other? Here's a hint: two of them are heavily involved in conservative politics, while one is just an ordinary guy whose lifelong conservativism is tempered with principle, piety and kindness.
In my short time here, I believe I've done much good, but I've also twice been falsely accused of being a sock, banned from interacting with an unstable individual who stalked my edits and banned from even talking about the idea of making Sarah Palin slightly more neutral. Entirely by "coincidence", before the Palin ban could expire so I could launch an RfC, many of the same people who have opposed my edits all along managed to pile on to an AN/I report to have my ban broadened to the entire site and extended indefinitely. And, of course, it's now a certainty that any number of people who, in the future, support some of the changes I've made will be falsely identified as my sock and permanently blocked.
I'm told that it would be easy to get the indefinite block removed: all I'd have to do is lie. I would need to play a particular role, where I'm contrite, admit guilt, and promise never to sin again. I should throw myself at the feet of the lynch mob and beg them to take me back, accepting onerous conditions that would prevent me from actually doing anything upon my return. I think it should be very clear why that would require undermining my own integrity and would be entirely unacceptable.
Wikipedia gets the editors it deserves. I'll leave it at that. Dylan Flaherty 18:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Look Dylan, Wikipedia is NOT a civil system (not that those are fair). You don't have civil rights here. Wikipedia is only as fair as the members of its community are in a particular case. Accept it or stop editing. Just be glad you don't live in WP in real life. And be surprised, because it took you this long to learn this. Which means, WP is surprisingly good considering what I just said. But if you choose to stay, remember that no one is interested in what others did, but in what you did. They're judging you relative to what should be, and perhaps to the overall norm, rather than relative to those who were uncivil to you. BE——Critical__ Talk 03:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that is it, thanks :D No, it doesn't apply here since he wants to continue in the same subjects. BE——Critical__ Talk 05:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Like so many things, there is history here. I don't know CrohnieGal at all, except from the previous time that she piled on [7] to "politely" suggest doubling a topic ban that shouldn't have been placed to begin with. Given this, her "friendly advice" was not wanted.
Love and humility are good things, but where's the humility in a "community" that turns a blind eye to outright insults but jumps down my throat for being less than friendly to someone who has proven not to be a friend? Where's the love when you turned a blind eye to me when I reported THF for insulting and edit-warring, only to ban me when THF comes with dirty hands and false accusations? It is pure hypocrisy to demand from me what you have not shown!
As for whether I want to be of more service to Wikipedia, not at all. I want Wikipedia to be more of service to me and to everyone else. That starts with having political articles that actually follow WP:NPOV instead of hiding any potentially negative fact. And that means not handing out topic bans and permanent blocks to the editors who fight hardest to fix what's most broken.
Like I said, I will not apologize when I have nothing to be sorry for; I will not lie or beg. I will edit with integrity or not edit at all. Doc's advice does not apply, as there is no future. You have once again bitten a newbie to death. Dylan Flaherty 03:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Not that it necessarily matters at this point, but Roscelese is correct here. Dylan Flaherty 03:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite movies as a child...the 1953 classic SHANE where, at the end of the movie, the little kid (Brandon de Wilde) calls out to Alan (Shane) Ladd, the gunslinger......." Shane, Sha-a-ane, Come Back Shane". But, Shane just rides off into the sunset. Sadly it was in the era before sequels. If there was a SHANE II, Alan Ladd would be the sheriff, the kid would be the deputy, and Jack Palance, dressed in black with a walking cane resembling a mop handle, would play the evil administrator of the town. Of course all would end well and everyone would live happily ever after. Only in Hollywood, I guess. Buster Seven Talk 07:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this note is the only thing I am going to say further on this subject. I will not reply further, so please do not expect me to. That aside, I saw doc change the placement of your reply to them, making it look like you were replying to BeCritical, and so I reverted. I have since been in discussion with them about it, and the content of that argument does not matter. I have since reverted myself with the edit placing this notation. Just thought you should know. Goodnight.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 08:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
At this point, it's pretty clear that I would have to lie to regain access, and that's just not going to happen. Goodbye. Dylan Flaherty 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
You're not the only person to go on wiki-crusades. But you've made the mistake of going on multiple ones in areas where enough well-connected opposition exists. Other editors have not been blocked much for doing the same against much feebler opposition. However, I think your debating style, especially on ANI, was the key to your downfall, especially in the wiki political climate strongly favoring a conservative approach to BLPs. Cynical regards, Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If it's any comfort to you, User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was also indef'd recently on a sufficiently compelling technicality, against the backdrop of similar wikibattles. [9] Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Friendship Barnstar | |
For your most excellent efforts in friendship towards your fellow Wikipedians, even though they didn't always return it in kind.
User:Buster7 would like to award you this Barnstar of Friendship.
|
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I never had the pleasure of participating in discussions you were involved in, however, viewing the archives you had excellent points and I hope to one day see your return to active editing. Wiki Man One 00:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Yes, this [1] was an obvious imposter, most likely the AfricaTruth/AfricanTruth person [2].
I'll leave you with a puzzle. Here are three recent statements made on Wikipedia. One comes from a respected admin who's notable enough to have a biographical article, another from a famous lawyer who likewise has a biographical article, and one was the statement that got an old Irish man indefinitely banned as a menace to Wikipedia. See if you can match them up without cheating.
What makes one worse than the other? Here's a hint: two of them are heavily involved in conservative politics, while one is just an ordinary guy whose lifelong conservativism is tempered with principle, piety and kindness.
In my short time here, I believe I've done much good, but I've also twice been falsely accused of being a sock, banned from interacting with an unstable individual who stalked my edits and banned from even talking about the idea of making Sarah Palin slightly more neutral. Entirely by "coincidence", before the Palin ban could expire so I could launch an RfC, many of the same people who have opposed my edits all along managed to pile on to an AN/I report to have my ban broadened to the entire site and extended indefinitely. And, of course, it's now a certainty that any number of people who, in the future, support some of the changes I've made will be falsely identified as my sock and permanently blocked.
I'm told that it would be easy to get the indefinite block removed: all I'd have to do is lie. I would need to play a particular role, where I'm contrite, admit guilt, and promise never to sin again. I should throw myself at the feet of the lynch mob and beg them to take me back, accepting onerous conditions that would prevent me from actually doing anything upon my return. I think it should be very clear why that would require undermining my own integrity and would be entirely unacceptable.
Wikipedia gets the editors it deserves. I'll leave it at that. Dylan Flaherty 18:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Look Dylan, Wikipedia is NOT a civil system (not that those are fair). You don't have civil rights here. Wikipedia is only as fair as the members of its community are in a particular case. Accept it or stop editing. Just be glad you don't live in WP in real life. And be surprised, because it took you this long to learn this. Which means, WP is surprisingly good considering what I just said. But if you choose to stay, remember that no one is interested in what others did, but in what you did. They're judging you relative to what should be, and perhaps to the overall norm, rather than relative to those who were uncivil to you. BE——Critical__ Talk 03:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that is it, thanks :D No, it doesn't apply here since he wants to continue in the same subjects. BE——Critical__ Talk 05:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Like so many things, there is history here. I don't know CrohnieGal at all, except from the previous time that she piled on [7] to "politely" suggest doubling a topic ban that shouldn't have been placed to begin with. Given this, her "friendly advice" was not wanted.
Love and humility are good things, but where's the humility in a "community" that turns a blind eye to outright insults but jumps down my throat for being less than friendly to someone who has proven not to be a friend? Where's the love when you turned a blind eye to me when I reported THF for insulting and edit-warring, only to ban me when THF comes with dirty hands and false accusations? It is pure hypocrisy to demand from me what you have not shown!
As for whether I want to be of more service to Wikipedia, not at all. I want Wikipedia to be more of service to me and to everyone else. That starts with having political articles that actually follow WP:NPOV instead of hiding any potentially negative fact. And that means not handing out topic bans and permanent blocks to the editors who fight hardest to fix what's most broken.
Like I said, I will not apologize when I have nothing to be sorry for; I will not lie or beg. I will edit with integrity or not edit at all. Doc's advice does not apply, as there is no future. You have once again bitten a newbie to death. Dylan Flaherty 03:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Not that it necessarily matters at this point, but Roscelese is correct here. Dylan Flaherty 03:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite movies as a child...the 1953 classic SHANE where, at the end of the movie, the little kid (Brandon de Wilde) calls out to Alan (Shane) Ladd, the gunslinger......." Shane, Sha-a-ane, Come Back Shane". But, Shane just rides off into the sunset. Sadly it was in the era before sequels. If there was a SHANE II, Alan Ladd would be the sheriff, the kid would be the deputy, and Jack Palance, dressed in black with a walking cane resembling a mop handle, would play the evil administrator of the town. Of course all would end well and everyone would live happily ever after. Only in Hollywood, I guess. Buster Seven Talk 07:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this note is the only thing I am going to say further on this subject. I will not reply further, so please do not expect me to. That aside, I saw doc change the placement of your reply to them, making it look like you were replying to BeCritical, and so I reverted. I have since been in discussion with them about it, and the content of that argument does not matter. I have since reverted myself with the edit placing this notation. Just thought you should know. Goodnight.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 08:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
At this point, it's pretty clear that I would have to lie to regain access, and that's just not going to happen. Goodbye. Dylan Flaherty 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
You're not the only person to go on wiki-crusades. But you've made the mistake of going on multiple ones in areas where enough well-connected opposition exists. Other editors have not been blocked much for doing the same against much feebler opposition. However, I think your debating style, especially on ANI, was the key to your downfall, especially in the wiki political climate strongly favoring a conservative approach to BLPs. Cynical regards, Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If it's any comfort to you, User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was also indef'd recently on a sufficiently compelling technicality, against the backdrop of similar wikibattles. [9] Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Friendship Barnstar | |
For your most excellent efforts in friendship towards your fellow Wikipedians, even though they didn't always return it in kind.
User:Buster7 would like to award you this Barnstar of Friendship.
|
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I never had the pleasure of participating in discussions you were involved in, however, viewing the archives you had excellent points and I hope to one day see your return to active editing. Wiki Man One 00:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.