User makes post deriding WP admin for admitting not even reading his unblock request, WPO responds by insulting him

[ChaosMeRee]

See Jake, when I see you sending out your panty sniffing creep of a mod to try and make trouble, that's when I know you're on the ropes. It reeks of desperation. I'm embarrassed for you.

Get your canon fodder off the field and get your ass back to the table.

You've got multiple lies to account for.

I leave the matter of you using Vigilant as a human shield to your own troops. Here's hoping they find a backbone. Or admit what seems to be rather obvious to me - none of you want him around, but you sense he has just enough bite left in his weary bones to give you a nasty nip if you tried to slide his piss soaked bed out of the house and into the cold. God what fun it must be to read all your PMs!

[ChaosMeRee]

LOL, poor guy has reduced himself to calling me one of "Jake's bitches." Anyway, enough of that. Engaging is not worth the effort. Don't want to weed through finding 5% of something useful/somewhat interesting surrounded by 95% of bitter nonsense. I hope he gets help.

To be clear, I said "someone who doesn't realise they're being Jake's bitch."

Which now seems to have been right on the money, no?

Yeah, you go off looking for interesting things.

I found one....

It is true that WPians can say "look, we fixed the error that you pointed out thus proving wikipedia works!" but alas the error is spread all over the net before the damage is done.

To be fair, Jake will take anyone who agrees with Jake. He's an insecure man with no real need or use for a Wikipedia criticism forum except to provide him with people to agree with him.

You agreed with him over the Neal Schon blog post because you felt like that's what you were supposed to do.

A bitch like you would never look at that blog post, look at what Jake said about the Gateway Pundit, and say....hang on a minute...what's the fucking deal here, do you take me for a fool?

You don't want to engage because you're comfortable not thinking about these things. Like a bitch.

Bitches don't be looking around wondering where all the cool kids went, and why the fuck did some even go back to Wikipedia rather than stick around on that forum? They bitches, fool.

Bitches don't be concerned about their time. They only care where their next meal is coming from. Whose dick they gotta suck to find a nice warm bed for the night.

Bitch!

(Damn, maybe I did get banned from Wikipediocracy for just being mindlessly abusive to their members?!?)

*checks Gateway Pundit thread*

Nope.



I'll be seeing you Jake. Because this is fun for me. Even if I'm the only person reading. I'm kind of an asshole that way.

But hey, look who my mentors were! I think I did pretty well, considering. Got out of an abusive relationship, got my own place, making my own money ($75 an hour), free cable.

I think it is very unfair that you tried to do me like a bitch, just because I wouldn't be your bitch.

And now you got your creepy panty sniffer Tarantino all up in my junk too? Just for exposing you as a dirty liar and a vain manipulator of weak minded fools?

That's some interesting shit right there.

Jess, if you're reading, and I know you are, take note, these people are your biggest fans. These people.

You have a think about that.

HTD.

[ChaosMeRee]

Fanmail!.....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... =8&t=13268

The other side of the coin is that those sorts of slogans are by their nature aspirational. And sure, the project can be dinged for how it fails to meet these aspirations, but if you don't aim high on these matters, you're going to end up in the dirt for sure. And besides, for Crow the point isn't how badly WP fails; it's that if you press Crow on the matter, the discussion is going to turn into a Jello-wrestling match because Crow is never going to be pinned down as to what this neutrality actually is

It's odd how, just like Jake, he had somehow forgotten there was a concrete example offered earlier in the thread that shows him up to be a complete liar.....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... f=6&t=9036

This seems pretty specific, does it not?

For those wondering, according to actual Wikipedia policy, given he only had the one source to hand to support his text, here's what Snoog's original edit should have looked like....

According to Politico, The Gateway Pundit is "known for reporting obvious hoaxes as legitimate news."
That is, if consensus was found that the opinion of this one journalist was significant enough to include at all. And rather than include it in the introduction, it should have been included in the main article text, under a suitably titled section, like "Reception", so as to not give it undue prominence.

Only if these "known for" type views become widespread in multiple reliable sources, can the sort of unqualified/unattributed edit Snoog made, be made. And it can only be made in the introduction, if that itself summarises greater detail surrounding these views already provided in the main article. If there's evident disagreement in sources, it is of course more complicated. Needless to say, as a mere Wikipedia editor, Snoog isn't meant to have any direct hand in that process, he is meant to be a passive element, the mere scribe of known history.

Being mere examples, the rest of his references should have only been included if it was deemed by consensus to be important to describe the specific incidents they report on, in the main body of the article. The typical way you judge that is if those examples have been mentioned in other sources as examples, rather than just first hand reporting. Otherwise, essentially, Wikipedia would just be a repository of news reporting merely mentioning the website, which policy is quite explicit about - "Wikipedia is not the news". Editorial judgement is crucial here, the goal being to ensure Wikipedia's use of such examples doesn't misrepresent the totality of views across all reliable sources, or give undue prominence to underreported incidents.

I did not need to be pinned down because I had already established my position up front.

I do not criticise Wikipedia out of ignorance, nor out of a lack of appreciation it is a project run by humans.

Quite the opposite.

I judge them by their own standards, their published rules. I ask them why they did not follow their own quite simple rules, even if only as an aspiration. Why they appear to have not even tried to follow them. Seem to be completely ignorant of them in fact.

Only when they refuse to answer, and try to justify doing the complete opposite of their aspiration, do I go into face-ripping mode. Entirely justifiable.

As always, the Wikipediocrats seek to paint me as a fool or worse, and as always, it is I who laughs last and laughs loudest.

Ho ho ho.

It took them days to think of even this bullshit. They need to stop inbreeding. It's making them slow.

[ericbarbour]

As always, the Wikipediocrats seek to paint me as a fool or worse, and as always, it is I who laughs last and laughs loudest.

Don't forget Vigina's 2019 thread claiming that this forum was "circling the drain".....mostly bitching about Abd......