User talk:Granola

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(For the record...)
(For the record...: goodbye)
 
(includes 24 intermediate revisions)
Line 186: Line 186:
:::If it's your opinion that the sysops are changing the rules so you and yours are disenfranchised, I think you're a little deluded. In the end, you may choose to participate here or not, but participating here needs to be in the spirit of community building, not accusations based on insufficient understanding of fact, as this debate here and elsewhere has been liberally peppered. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
:::If it's your opinion that the sysops are changing the rules so you and yours are disenfranchised, I think you're a little deluded. In the end, you may choose to participate here or not, but participating here needs to be in the spirit of community building, not accusations based on insufficient understanding of fact, as this debate here and elsewhere has been liberally peppered. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Really? What else do you call insisting that non-admins follow admins' every command, when no such requirement exists? {{User:Granola/sig}} 17:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Really? What else do you call insisting that non-admins follow admins' every command, when no such requirement exists? {{User:Granola/sig}} 17:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
:::::Frankly, I call it a straw man argument. No one is asking you or anyone to goosestep to the commands of the sysops. In each case presented in this debate, it's clear to me their decisions have been for the best. If you disagree, perhaps it is me who is off the mark; or perhaps you need to reevaluate why you want to contribute here. Is it to build the knowledge base and promote good community? Or are there ulterior motives? I cannot answer that for you, nor need you present these answers. But I suggest thinking about it so you're sure of the answer. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
:::::Because we need no requiremtn. We only need good judgment, and that means following the sysops. Why do you think they are sysops? Because they know what's best, do they not? You act like we're slaves, but you don't realize that they're right. Why else would we follow them and not you? — {{User: Seriously/sig}} 17:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
::::::The sysops don't ''always'' make good decisions. No one is perfect, not even them. {{User:Granola/sig}} 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
:::::::I agree fully here. Still, it's my opinion that in the cases cited, they have made the right decisions. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
What, exactly, is your problem here? Is it because we said you couldn't have a guestbook, because the ''community'', not the admins, made that decision. You make it sound like atrocities are happening left and right, but I can't see any evidence of this. Are you just anti-authority, anti-system, or what? I really can't tell why you care so much. You seem to claim to stand up for the rights of the little guy (and thus imply that the admins don't), but what is the point of your fight? I am a staunch defender of user rights and fairness. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
:This has nothing to do with guestbooks. I'm talking about things like Seriously's block back around the time I joined, and Darth's recent block (who was right was more of a gray area ''that'' time, but a month-long block was absurd). More generally, the problem is that many of the admins seem to have forgotten that they aren't actually above other users in terms of authority; will never admit that their adminship doesn't mean they're always right; and won't tolerate criticism of their decisions. ''That'' is what the problem is here. {{User:Granola/sig}} 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
::But none of the admins are like that! That's what I'm trying to say! — {{User: Seriously/sig}} 18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
::Again, I must disagree. The block on DKX was, in my view, appropriate considering the long history of negative contribution. His block was less punitive than constructive. Seriously himself agrees his block was merited; who are you to plead on his behalf if he does not wish it? And finally, the sysops certainly do not see themselves as above anyone else, with the possible exception of users who seek to use the wiki to promote their small personal needs of attention and excitement rather than contribute to the greater good. However, i don't presume to speak for them in saying that. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 18:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
:::Actually, some of them are. Your block was a textbook example of Item 1; several cases of users (such as yourself) having legitimate questions about their decisions and getting rudely shot down are good examples of Items 2 and 3. {{User:Granola/sig}} 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
::::I wasn't shot down. Now please, stop talking about my block. As Qermaq said, if I myself agree with my block, who are you to plead against it? — {{User: Seriously/sig}} 18:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
 +
Seriously, you were shot down more times than I can count. As for your block, I think you don't quite understand the policies. There was ''no'' legitimate reason for your block. {{User:Granola/sig}} 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
::I ''know'' I was shot more times than I can count easily. You know what? I also know how terrible it feels to see my talk page on Recent changes from Dot com or Tom and know inside it's going to be something negative toward me. But the worst part is knowing that it was all justified. It's not for you to decide whether or not I'm being shot down fro the wrong reason. Like so many people have said to me, please mind your own business. — {{User: Seriously/sig}} 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
:::Some of your comments were pretty annoying, but It's dot Tom really overreacted to them. {{User:Granola/sig}} 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
:Seriously and Ciberdude were told not to interact with each other, especially in a hostile way. They did anyway. They were warned that they would be blocked if they did. So they were. It's really not that hard to figure out. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
 +
::Ah, except for one thing. That depends on the notion that non-admins have to follow admins' every order. They ''don't''. And it isn't Seriously's fault that Ciberdouche is an ass<!--Leave this word alone. Don't say it to your mom.-->hole. {{User:Granola/sig}} 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::It's funny, but we don't really give that many orders. When we do, we have a good reason. I'm wondering why you think we don't have the right to give orders, because we do. Our policies&mdash;both written and traditional&mdash;back this up. It's also just common sense. It has become quite apparent that you have no interest in contributing positively here. You also seem obsessed with reclaiming your old identity. Unfortunately, as we discussed long ago, that identity is not welcome here. As such, I must bid you goodbye now. Good luck with your future endeavors. Sorry things didn't work out for you here. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Current revision as of 19:21, 20 May 2006

You have an archive.

Contents

Welcome

Hey there Granola, this is User:ACupOfCoffee, and on behalf of myself and the rest of the Welcoming Committee I'd like to welcome you to the Homestar Runner Wiki. If you've never contributed to a wiki-based project before,then it'd be worth your while to check out the MediaWiki User's Guide and our own Help:Editing page. I need to let you know that before you start contributing substantially, you really ought to read our HRWiki:Standards page so you don't waste your time adding content that will just wind up deleted or worse, get you blocked from editing. If you have any questions, try the HRWiki:FAQ, and if your question isn't answered there, post it at HRWiki talk:FAQ.

You've got your own user page, and you can put basically anything you want on it as long as it our HRWiki:User space policies. Another page you'll probably visit a lot is our community portal: The Stick. Remember, our goal here is a comprehensive Homestar Runner knowledge base. Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing a string of 4 tildes (these little guys: "~") is all it takes. the system'll do the rest. I'm going to quit talking your ear off now and go do something productive.

Hope to see you around

— User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome! Again! Thare was no point of this! --TheThin 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Contributor

If you want to actually contribute, you can stay. If you're here to cause more trouble, you may not. — It's dot com 18:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So, did you expect me to turn out to be Yelt? With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 18:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, yes. This is from Monday, February 20, 2006:
[17:37] Dot_com: Yeltensic may have just created another account
[17:37] Dot_com: Keep an eye on Granola
[17:37] Heimstern: Seems not to have done anything odd yet.
...
[23:04] Dot_com: well, either Granola really isn't Yeltensic, or he's certainly going out of his way this time
[23:07] Heimstern: Yeah, I'd say so.
It's dot com 18:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Signature

I suggest you sign on as Yeltensic and then copy your current sig. There would be less confusion that way. — Seriously (Talk) 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't be 2 users. --TheThin 23:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean; what I meant is that I am the same person as Yeltensic. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You should be blocked then. --TheThin 00:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No, they're letting me stay, but only with this account, not the old one. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
So long as he behaves this time, he's being allowed to stay. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 00:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Just as long as you know, Granola, I'm fine with you being here. Just don't want it to seem like I hate you. —BazookaJoe 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems deep inside we all missed the guestbook crusader. — Seriously (Talk) 00:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, no, that's really not it at all. But if someone actually wants to be a real contributor, then we'll give him or her another chance. — It's dot com 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I smell a hint of hostility in that, Dot commy. But yeah, I guess we don't really miss you, but rather we're lifting the grudge. — Seriously (Talk) 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Woah. That was a surprise. Bluebry 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like... Yeltensic... without all the... Yeltensic-ness. Glad to see you want to be an actual contributor again, Yelt, er, Granola. I always thought you were a cool guy. Now we just have to figure out what to do with Dr. Who... Has Matt? (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to still call me Yelt or Yelty or Yeltensic. In fact, I'd rather be called that. (if I had my way I'd go back to using the Yeltensic account, but I'm not allowed to). With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I called you guys douchebags! With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dot com really hit the nail on the head, huh? It seems that all is completely forgiven. Now that Yelt has taken the time to think abou this, it's a whole lot better. — Seriously (Talk) 00:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

To you,

Don't go here. They'll block you. --TheThin 00:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing, I meant that before he apologized in his email to me. Whatev, if the wiki accepts him, we should too. — Seriously (Talk) 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

You don't seem to understand something: We are erasing all of evidence that you are Yeltensic. We are saving you the embarassment of tyour history here. Please don't associate with him/you. — Seriously (Talk) 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriosly, please be quiet. Leave the Human Resources job to the sysops. Thanks. —BazookaJoe 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that you mean well, Seriously, but I want it know that I'm Yelt, because I want it known that I'm the same person as Yeltensic42 from Wikipedia, and Yeltensic on several other sites. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I like, cry when large amounts of information is delorted for good. STUFF is different, though. Bluebry 00:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh....— Seriously (Talk) 00:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem! I have multiple ones. Bluebry 02:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Signature II: Son of "Signature"

Pardon the cool movie intro I stole from Abdiviklas. Anyway, I changed my sig to teal. That way people can tell our sig apart better. Just a heads up. — Seriously (Talk) 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well now it's kind of like I forced you out of your sig, but thanks, that's prolly a good idea. As you can see, the comster also made me change my sig so that it doesn't say,"I'm Yelt." With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I like it better when it's teal anyway. But feel free to copy that too. And Dot com's right, I think he just wants you to turn over a new leaf. — Seriously (Talk) 02:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
He did say that in a month or so, though, if I stay out of trouble, I might be allowed to use my original account again instead of this one. Keeping my fingers crossed. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 06:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

From sig talkpage

You can't be Yeltensic! He's already a user this is called trolling. --TheThin 23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the same person as Yeltensic, I guess you missed all the excitement earlier. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't you be blocked then? --TheThin 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No, they're letting me stay, but only with this account, not the old one. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't go here. They'll block you. --TheThin 00:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed.

I never thought that someone would make a cool people list funnier than mine. That is truly hilarious. You, good sir, are amazing. — Seriously (Talk) 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...but make no mistake about it, your list is hilarious. Plus I got the idea from you. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 04:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Signature III: The Revenge

Hey Granola. I've noticed your signature is significantly longer than the current wiki signature standards. Below is your current signature, with the blue box being the maximum length allowed. Obviously keeping "With crap" in your signature pushes it significantly over the maximum. I'm sure you can come up with a way to shrink it back within the limits. Thanks alot, Thunderbird 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


With crap, Yeltensic (T C)
Image:sigbox.png

It just barely fits now. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 08:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


It seems like you should be able to do that, doesn't it? Sorry. No dice. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't quite get what you mean.... With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 23:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're trying to get a sig from the test page rather from the sig page. I quoted Peasant's Quest. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I did...you can do it, all I had to do was set my sig in my preferences as the test page instead of my sig page. I then signed the page, to see if it would create some sort of endless tunnel effect. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 23:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Dude, I think you broke the Internet. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Did it really cause any kind of damage to this site? If if does do anything harmful, I'll stop... With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We,, not damage, but IDC might not want you calling up his page... Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps not...that was only temporary though. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Was pretty cool though. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Test

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous}}

Welcome

Thank you! How did you type all of that so quicly though?! -I'maCluelessNewbie

Your welcome. It was a template; I just copied and pasted it. I wish I could type that fast. BTW, please remember to type four tildes (these things: ~) after your messages, to produce your sig and the time/date. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'maCluelessNewbie

Um... Is there some reason you created—and then welcomed—"User:I'maCluelessNewbie"? — It's dot com 17:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh..I was afraid you might be online, and would notice that. No, there's no reason, I was just bored. I shoulda done that at my other house, so I could use different IPs on two computers. (Or, rather, I shoulda just been doing my schoolwork....) With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Bored or not, please don't do that, wherever you happen to find yourself. At the very least, it creates clutter in the database and more things for the rest of us to keep track of; and on the other end of the spectrum, it could appear that you are trying to create sockpuppets. — It's dot com 17:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I won't do that. Sorry. You can go ahead and delete the account if you want. I wasn't going to use it for any vandalism. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think you were; I just meant that it could appear that way to others. — It's dot com 17:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see how it might appear that way...I guess I don't exactly have the best record, huh? With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Saga of Yelt

I read it :) and don't worry about copying my idea, that got bumped from my list of pages a few days ago. See ya around. Thunderbird 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you were part of the saga, so you already knew all of it...did you run and look at the source code? Tsk tsk. :) With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't take requests!

Yeah I do. Anyway, here it is: {{Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous}}

Just wondering, though: what are you planning to do with it? — Seriously (Talk) 02:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I meant my talkpage on Wikipedia. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 02:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hey Granola, I've noticed you've been bumming around in the Sandbox alot recently. Might I suggest creating your own wiki? Many users, such as The thing have done this, including myself. It's a great place to just edit and test whatever the heck you want. Let me know if you make one, and I'll come and visit. Thunderbird 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I guess everyone noticed that. Funny you mention that, I put in a request at Wikicities the other day to found a Talking Heads wiki. I guess that wouldn't be exactly my own wiki, but it would be sorta like that. (I'm not sure why I did that though, I need to be spending less time on the Internet, it's cutting into school..hmm that reminds me, I should have gone to bed 3 hours ago, it's a school night..ah well.) I guess I could mess around on the Heads wiki until lots of people join, then start a sandbox yeltensic wiki, even if that would be (I'm starting to lose count) 8 sites I'm obligated to (10 if you count wikis on Wikicities seperately). But anyway, that's a good idea, thanks. Recent changes patrollers will prolly make that an official holiday. :) With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 08:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record...

It was entirely my fault when I got blocked, and it was entirely justified. Look back through the whole story and you'll realize how. — Seriously (Talk) 00:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember it (it happened literally right before I joined as Yeltensic, and I looked through all the edit histories involved, and as it happened, it had a not insignificant amount to do with why I started vandalizing), and I don't think it was your fault at all. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Granola, you really have some nerve. I am astounded by just how much you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. By the way, have you made any main namespace contributions lately? No? Not in over two months? Then stop giving us advice about how to run this wiki, because we really don't care what you think. — It's dot com 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that I disagree with Darth and Seriously's blocks. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice userbox there. </sarcasm> Yeah, I really can see you have some nerve. You grudge the admins at any chance you get. — Seriously (Talk) 00:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't made any edits lately (because A)I've been spending less time on the Internet, having somewhat more of a life now and B)I've been spending more of my Internet time on IMDB and MySpace), and I came back to find this going on.. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 01:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, notice how several of them are on my Cool People list.. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 01:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you sure don't treat them like cool people. — Seriously (Talk) 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Really Granola, The 10-year old does not tell how the parent should drive. --Dacheatbot · Communicate 01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I still think they're cool, I just happen to disagree with them here, and I think it's irritating that they're evidently unable to handle criticism. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
To the anon who removed Seriously and Dacheatbot's comments: don't do that. Everyone's comments are welcome on my talkpage. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
They can handle critisism. They are good people. — Seriously (Talk) 01:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
They are good people, and generally do a good job..but like everyone, they make mistakes sometimes, and some of them don't seem to be very good at handling criticism; they're probably used to going unquestioned because they normally do a goob job. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 01:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh. I refer you to my comments above. — It's dot com 01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Which ones? With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 01:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Really? My last comments. The only ones in this thread. — It's dot com 01:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether you were also including the ones further up, perhaps the ones that had to do with my return. Anyway. If you're going to essentially prove my point, guess what, Dot com? Maybe, just maybe, I don't care what you think anymore. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 01:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Well, that's fine with us. Frankly, we don't care what you think, and if you want to neglect his opinions, then that's okay. But little do you know that you're the wrong one here. Being hostile will not help anything. You are so below him, it's not even funny. — Seriously (Talk) 03:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that'll teach me not to ever defend you again. My apologies. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 03:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

haha loks lik yelnetsic got himslef in trobl ha ha wll neway im on u guyz sid yetlensic SUCKS!!!! -Droifc

Yeltensic is not a ten-year-old, for your information. He is one of Wikipedia's most popular editors and he almost got elected to be a wiki admin. So you'd all best watch your mouth; after all, you do want him to be a merciful admin down at Wikipedia, now don't you? LOL. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Yeltensic's activities at Wikipedia are not of our concern. And, with all due respect, I wouldn't define a three-to-twenty-one decline as "almost". — Lapper (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Lapper's right, I lost in a landslide. I don't think I'll be running again either. They just have to worry about me being a merciful admin at Dandypedia, mwahahaha. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, guys, from HRWiki:Administrators....

"Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everyone else in terms of editorial responsibility. Some consider the terms "Sysop" and "Administrator" to be misnomers, as they just indicate users who have had performance- and security-based restrictions on several features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks. Sysops should not have power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users."

..so, Seriously was blocked for disobeying admins, not actually disobeying the policies of the community...hey, wait a minute! Something doesn't add up here... With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, that text was taken verbatim from Wikipedia way back when we set up that page. It's probably due for an update. Nevertheless, it refers to questions of article content, not user behavior. — It's dot com 17:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you should update it before you guys start acting as if it's been updated already. How can you expect users to follow policies that don't exist yet? It's absurd. (probably the main advantage the admins have here is that they're the only ones who bothered to read the rules). With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's your opinion that the sysops are changing the rules so you and yours are disenfranchised, I think you're a little deluded. In the end, you may choose to participate here or not, but participating here needs to be in the spirit of community building, not accusations based on insufficient understanding of fact, as this debate here and elsewhere has been liberally peppered. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Really? What else do you call insisting that non-admins follow admins' every command, when no such requirement exists? With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I call it a straw man argument. No one is asking you or anyone to goosestep to the commands of the sysops. In each case presented in this debate, it's clear to me their decisions have been for the best. If you disagree, perhaps it is me who is off the mark; or perhaps you need to reevaluate why you want to contribute here. Is it to build the knowledge base and promote good community? Or are there ulterior motives? I cannot answer that for you, nor need you present these answers. But I suggest thinking about it so you're sure of the answer. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Because we need no requiremtn. We only need good judgment, and that means following the sysops. Why do you think they are sysops? Because they know what's best, do they not? You act like we're slaves, but you don't realize that they're right. Why else would we follow them and not you? — Seriously (Talk) 17:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The sysops don't always make good decisions. No one is perfect, not even them. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree fully here. Still, it's my opinion that in the cases cited, they have made the right decisions. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is your problem here? Is it because we said you couldn't have a guestbook, because the community, not the admins, made that decision. You make it sound like atrocities are happening left and right, but I can't see any evidence of this. Are you just anti-authority, anti-system, or what? I really can't tell why you care so much. You seem to claim to stand up for the rights of the little guy (and thus imply that the admins don't), but what is the point of your fight? I am a staunch defender of user rights and fairness. — It's dot com 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with guestbooks. I'm talking about things like Seriously's block back around the time I joined, and Darth's recent block (who was right was more of a gray area that time, but a month-long block was absurd). More generally, the problem is that many of the admins seem to have forgotten that they aren't actually above other users in terms of authority; will never admit that their adminship doesn't mean they're always right; and won't tolerate criticism of their decisions. That is what the problem is here. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
But none of the admins are like that! That's what I'm trying to say! — Seriously (Talk) 18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, I must disagree. The block on DKX was, in my view, appropriate considering the long history of negative contribution. His block was less punitive than constructive. Seriously himself agrees his block was merited; who are you to plead on his behalf if he does not wish it? And finally, the sysops certainly do not see themselves as above anyone else, with the possible exception of users who seek to use the wiki to promote their small personal needs of attention and excitement rather than contribute to the greater good. However, i don't presume to speak for them in saying that. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, some of them are. Your block was a textbook example of Item 1; several cases of users (such as yourself) having legitimate questions about their decisions and getting rudely shot down are good examples of Items 2 and 3. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't shot down. Now please, stop talking about my block. As Qermaq said, if I myself agree with my block, who are you to plead against it? — Seriously (Talk) 18:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you were shot down more times than I can count. As for your block, I think you don't quite understand the policies. There was no legitimate reason for your block. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I know I was shot more times than I can count easily. You know what? I also know how terrible it feels to see my talk page on Recent changes from Dot com or Tom and know inside it's going to be something negative toward me. But the worst part is knowing that it was all justified. It's not for you to decide whether or not I'm being shot down fro the wrong reason. Like so many people have said to me, please mind your own business. — Seriously (Talk) 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of your comments were pretty annoying, but It's dot Tom really overreacted to them. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Seriously and Ciberdude were told not to interact with each other, especially in a hostile way. They did anyway. They were warned that they would be blocked if they did. So they were. It's really not that hard to figure out. — It's dot com 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, except for one thing. That depends on the notion that non-admins have to follow admins' every order. They don't. And it isn't Seriously's fault that Ciberdouche is an asshole. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It's funny, but we don't really give that many orders. When we do, we have a good reason. I'm wondering why you think we don't have the right to give orders, because we do. Our policies—both written and traditional—back this up. It's also just common sense. It has become quite apparent that you have no interest in contributing positively here. You also seem obsessed with reclaiming your old identity. Unfortunately, as we discussed long ago, that identity is not welcome here. As such, I must bid you goodbye now. Good luck with your future endeavors. Sorry things didn't work out for you here. — It's dot com 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools