Yes, I'm really the same user as Shalom Yechiel ( talk · contribs) and all his socks. Note that I will post to Wikipedia Review simultaneously to confirm this. I am doing my "real editing" using a different account nowadays; those who saw me at the NYC meetup in July know the name of that account. Shalom wants his junk deleted ( talk) 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Stop with the nonsense. Do you intend to use this account for anything useful? Friday (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- You know I'm right. If you don't want to even discuss whether the articles should be deleted, then there is no reason to doubt that Wikipedia is better off because I wrote them. Shalom wants his junk deleted ( talk) 22:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Shalom, I think it's time that you a) chill out a bit, b) don't feed the trolls, offsite and onsite, and c) don't take seriously any idiotics from people who prefer not to be named. Your little special friend, the anonymous user, is a yellow-spined coward of a bully who gets off on you reacting like this - you are, in short, doing what he wants. Now stop it. If they really wanted to be taken seriously, then you'd know who they were, and so would anybody else, because they'd make it clear as to who they were. Yer here on Wikipedia, dude - be bold! Ignore the fucktards like him! Spread your wings and FLY, dammit! =) -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, folks, I'm surprised it took you this long.
- I'm pretty sad it's come to this actually. Not sure what's changed in the last year, but I'm sorry this is what it's come to. You seem pretty angry about things. If there are grievances you'd like to air, feel free to contact me and I'll listen - I've been a bit out of touch over the last year so not sure what's gone on. Presumably (from the name of this account) there's stuff you want deleted. If you tell me what it is and why, I'll consider it. Will (
WJBscribe
(talk))
23:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, not really. All the personal stuff in userspace got deleted eons ago, and I'm happy that my privacy is protected. My WP:POINT was to prove to "Anonymous editor" on Wikipedia Review that my net effect on Wikipedia was a positive one; apparently this was not obvious to him, and the kibitzers took his side over mine, which I found very upsetting. In order to call his bluff when he said Wikipedia would be better without my contributions, I said, "All right, let's delete some of them" - not that I wanted to have them deleted (I never did), but because I wanted to prove that all my hours of effort did produce something of lasting value. Shalom wants his junk deleted ( talk) 23:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion here:
[1] You may need to go earlier to get the context.
Shalom wants his junk deleted (
talk)
23:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can see how his comments would have been upsetting but I'm at a loss to work out how your edits were intended to prove that your contributions were valid. It all looks a bit self-destructive to me. Might I suggest (at the risk of stating the obvious) that hanging around Wikipedia Review nursing old grudges is a bit unhealthy? WJBscribe (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Put yourself in my shoes. You have spent literally thousands of hours working to improve Wikipedia. In order to perform administrative tasks such as deleting articles at CSD and AFD, you ask for permission to receive those tools, which are granted to editors of similar experience and competence. Someone happens to remember that 15 months earlier, when you were a brand new editor, you did something wrong and stupid, and opposes on that basis, and others agree that you need a little more time to show a good track record. You say, okay fine, I'll continue working on things and eventually your good track record will surface. Three subsequent requests for adminship also fail, each performing worse than the previous one, even though you have been 100% forthright about understanding that what you did was wrong, and even though you have by this time contributed far more to the improvement and maintenance of the project than even most administrators do in their lifetime.
- In the end, not only does the community reject you as an RFA candidate (which is not so bad) but they reject you as an editor also. They say your work is of no value, your articles are of passing interest at best, and your administrative work did little to help the project run smoothly. In short, they undermine the whole basis on which you contribute here. Lest you say: why then do you contribute? It is not a simple question. I have contributed for many reasons. First, curiosity; wanting to help a little bit; wanting to learn more about subjects by writing about them; wanting to become part of a knowledge community; wanting to defend the wiki against various forces that undermine its usefulness; wanting to clean up other people's messes (eg. WP:DEP) to make articles more readable; wanting to actualize other people's contributions by teamwork ( WP:AFC and answering at the WP:HELPDESK); and ultimately believing that building the "sum of human knowledge" using my unique skills was a worthy and noble endeavor. For all this, I demanded not a cent in compensation; I did it as a volunteer. What does a volunteer want, but to be thanked for his service and recognized for what he has accomplished. Those barnstars and DYKs were nice, but looking back today, nobody (maybe Steve Smith is an exception) recognizes my contributions and says thank you for helping out. I think EVula and one other guy was nice enough to leave a goodbye note on my old user talk page. I did not depart last year under the best of circumstances, but people of far less value to the project have received messages of thanks and well wishes upon leaving. I can manage without that; it is not a reasonable expectation; but I am surprised that I have received more of the "I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet" type response than the "thanks for what you did to help" response.
- Under these conditions, why should I behave in vain hopes of recovering my sullied name? I was told long ago, after the first discovery of problematic behavior, that I might convince people of my integrity by doing good things. The more good things I did, the worse people thought of me. I thought admitting to my mistakes was a good thing; people interpreted it as a bad thing. What motivation should I have to do good now, when I see it is not rewarded? So quietly, under a different account name, I may contribute a little to "help out", but I am not trying to build a reputation, not trying to get thanked or acknowledged for my assistance, not trying to get attention of any kind--because the community has hurt me more than I could ever wish to hurt them back. Shalom wants his junk deleted ( talk) 15:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm really the same user as Shalom Yechiel ( talk · contribs) and all his socks. Note that I will post to Wikipedia Review simultaneously to confirm this. I am doing my "real editing" using a different account nowadays; those who saw me at the NYC meetup in July know the name of that account. Shalom wants his junk deleted ( talk) 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Stop with the nonsense. Do you intend to use this account for anything useful? Friday (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- You know I'm right. If you don't want to even discuss whether the articles should be deleted, then there is no reason to doubt that Wikipedia is better off because I wrote them. Shalom wants his junk deleted ( talk) 22:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Shalom, I think it's time that you a) chill out a bit, b) don't feed the trolls, offsite and onsite, and c) don't take seriously any idiotics from people who prefer not to be named. Your little special friend, the anonymous user, is a yellow-spined coward of a bully who gets off on you reacting like this - you are, in short, doing what he wants. Now stop it. If they really wanted to be taken seriously, then you'd know who they were, and so would anybody else, because they'd make it clear as to who they were. Yer here on Wikipedia, dude - be bold! Ignore the fucktards like him! Spread your wings and FLY, dammit! =) -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, folks, I'm surprised it took you this long.
- I'm pretty sad it's come to this actually. Not sure what's changed in the last year, but I'm sorry this is what it's come to. You seem pretty angry about things. If there are grievances you'd like to air, feel free to contact me and I'll listen - I've been a bit out of touch over the last year so not sure what's gone on. Presumably (from the name of this account) there's stuff you want deleted. If you tell me what it is and why, I'll consider it. Will (
WJBscribe
(talk))
23:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, not really. All the personal stuff in userspace got deleted eons ago, and I'm happy that my privacy is protected. My WP:POINT was to prove to "Anonymous editor" on Wikipedia Review that my net effect on Wikipedia was a positive one; apparently this was not obvious to him, and the kibitzers took his side over mine, which I found very upsetting. In order to call his bluff when he said Wikipedia would be better without my contributions, I said, "All right, let's delete some of them" - not that I wanted to have them deleted (I never did), but because I wanted to prove that all my hours of effort did produce something of lasting value. Shalom wants his junk deleted ( talk) 23:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion here:
[1] You may need to go earlier to get the context.
Shalom wants his junk deleted (
talk)
23:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can see how his comments would have been upsetting but I'm at a loss to work out how your edits were intended to prove that your contributions were valid. It all looks a bit self-destructive to me. Might I suggest (at the risk of stating the obvious) that hanging around Wikipedia Review nursing old grudges is a bit unhealthy? WJBscribe (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Put yourself in my shoes. You have spent literally thousands of hours working to improve Wikipedia. In order to perform administrative tasks such as deleting articles at CSD and AFD, you ask for permission to receive those tools, which are granted to editors of similar experience and competence. Someone happens to remember that 15 months earlier, when you were a brand new editor, you did something wrong and stupid, and opposes on that basis, and others agree that you need a little more time to show a good track record. You say, okay fine, I'll continue working on things and eventually your good track record will surface. Three subsequent requests for adminship also fail, each performing worse than the previous one, even though you have been 100% forthright about understanding that what you did was wrong, and even though you have by this time contributed far more to the improvement and maintenance of the project than even most administrators do in their lifetime.
- In the end, not only does the community reject you as an RFA candidate (which is not so bad) but they reject you as an editor also. They say your work is of no value, your articles are of passing interest at best, and your administrative work did little to help the project run smoothly. In short, they undermine the whole basis on which you contribute here. Lest you say: why then do you contribute? It is not a simple question. I have contributed for many reasons. First, curiosity; wanting to help a little bit; wanting to learn more about subjects by writing about them; wanting to become part of a knowledge community; wanting to defend the wiki against various forces that undermine its usefulness; wanting to clean up other people's messes (eg. WP:DEP) to make articles more readable; wanting to actualize other people's contributions by teamwork ( WP:AFC and answering at the WP:HELPDESK); and ultimately believing that building the "sum of human knowledge" using my unique skills was a worthy and noble endeavor. For all this, I demanded not a cent in compensation; I did it as a volunteer. What does a volunteer want, but to be thanked for his service and recognized for what he has accomplished. Those barnstars and DYKs were nice, but looking back today, nobody (maybe Steve Smith is an exception) recognizes my contributions and says thank you for helping out. I think EVula and one other guy was nice enough to leave a goodbye note on my old user talk page. I did not depart last year under the best of circumstances, but people of far less value to the project have received messages of thanks and well wishes upon leaving. I can manage without that; it is not a reasonable expectation; but I am surprised that I have received more of the "I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet" type response than the "thanks for what you did to help" response.
- Under these conditions, why should I behave in vain hopes of recovering my sullied name? I was told long ago, after the first discovery of problematic behavior, that I might convince people of my integrity by doing good things. The more good things I did, the worse people thought of me. I thought admitting to my mistakes was a good thing; people interpreted it as a bad thing. What motivation should I have to do good now, when I see it is not rewarded? So quietly, under a different account name, I may contribute a little to "help out", but I am not trying to build a reputation, not trying to get thanked or acknowledged for my assistance, not trying to get attention of any kind--because the community has hurt me more than I could ever wish to hurt them back. Shalom wants his junk deleted ( talk) 15:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)