View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:21 am

Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
John from Idegon 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
You say dumb shit like this, you're gonna get a spot on the wall.....
I'm so sorry you're too fucking dense to understand this, but none of YOUR pompous time waisting here is improving the encyclopedia. Its fucking busywork you've appointed yourself to. Drop it, drop it right fucking now or I'll drag you to a noticeboard and ask you be topic banned from catagories. You're obsessed. That's clear. You've lost view of the forest (providing a ready source of accurate information to the world) for the trees (some list that serves some purpose probably, maybe, but certainly in no way in this particular instance served any purpose related to dispensing knowledge). Try to wrap your head around this: A red link catagory on a user page is just a bunch of words . It does not in any way affect the end product, the encyclopedia. The only PAG you've got backing you is a guideline. There is no consensus backing your removal and it appears that both the owner of the affected page and the consensus of editors speaking on it at his talk oppose your removal. Yet you are edit warring over it. All so you can clear some obscure list. And your certainly barking up the wrong tree waving your flag of experience in my face. My experience is there are many many editors here who started in the previous decade (including several administrators and highly prolific editors) that haven't a clue at all as to what Wikipedia is or what it needs going into its third decade. Bottom line: your actions here had no affect on the product we produce, an encyclopedia. But yet, you edit warred over it. Pick your battles. I was a hotel manager for many years. There was an instance where a housekeeper (in a department that at that time was 100% female) had a beefcake calendar on the inside of her locker door, which was a violation of policy (this was long enough ago that working environments were a bit, uh, different than now). Without any complaint the executive housekeeper opened her locker and removed it, came to me and asked that she be written up for it. I asked her who had complained and she stated no one. I asked her if she found it offensive, to which she said no. I pulled the maid into my office, handed her the calendar and asked her nicely to take it home. She agreed. Problem solved. Why am I telling you this? Her calendar didn't affect our product at all. Its presence violated a workplace policy, but there was 0 indications that it affected any employee in a negative way, and that department was stellar. I doubt (without a complaint) I'd have even done anything if she put it back. So, here you have some letters on a highly productive (and influential) editor's user page. Just sitting there not bothering a soul. Now today, it shows up on some list. You feel the need to clear that list, which I can see the benefit for in mainspace. So you edit war over it to achieve the goal of CLEARING A LIST. Guess what? We're not here to make and clear internal lists. We're here to make an encyclopedia. I cannot see any justification in edit warring over that, especially since I'm sure if you'd have just asked, he most likely would have removed it voluntarily. If you continually have problems with a small segment of editors over clearing your list, you need to recognize that problem is likely yours, not the other editors. There are no mission or policy based arguments to be made for the need to clear a list. It's your self appointed goal. It isn't your "job"; you're not going to get demoted for not doing it. Edit warring to clear a list is the disruptive behavior here, not people calling you on it. You have contributed a lot to the project, that is certain. And prior to this precise conversation, I've never lumped you in with that group of long term editors I mentioned above. If you wanted to be envelope pushing passionate about verifiability or POV to the point of edit warring I'd get that (and have your back). But if you want to battle about clearing a maintenance list, especially when the particular edit in question isn't even front-facing, you've got nothing coming here. I personally wouldn't want to be remembered as the editor who passionately defended clearing maintenance lists. Just a thought. This is over. Not because your list is cleared, certainly not because you are righteous here, but because Doc threw in the towel. See ya later. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
That rant was directed at BrownHairdGirl, who must be ever so pleased to be told she needs to ask the powerful and influential man (Drmies) for his permission before she can apply a Wikipedia guideline to what he has hanging in his locker.

Oh, and as usual, when a woman is edit warring over some lame shit on Wikipedia, she's being "passionate" and "obsessed" over her "busywork", and the man really has no choice but to break the same cast iron policy, as well as another one, the one that says don't personally attack your fellow editors, just so he can stop her enforcing her silly guideline.

He did it for the good of the readers. I hope you are grateful.

Naturally, not that it would excuse him even if he wasn't, but this male brained ape is clearly wrong on the substantive content issue too. As she had already pointed out to him, a list that is meant to be emptied of 100-150 items a day, which even he accepts is a a crucial maintenance task, has no business being permanently cluttered with a randomly changing number of entries that are there for no good reason at all (it would currently be around 50 if this guideline did not exist).

Making sure the menfolk can have a good laugh at work, and generally ensuring they have nice lockers, is by his own definition, not important. Certainly not important enough to edit war over the basic principle that it is supposedly vital to Wikipedia. If Drmies is such a big baby that he withdraws his labour if he is not first asked nicely if he wouldn't mind not defining himself as a "Wikipedia sex worker" after consensus has established that is a dumb thing for anyone to be doing (seriously, that is the specific dispute that triggered this bullshit), then let him quit.

But no. Drmies is a man. His feelings matter. He is doing important work. BrownHairedGirl is just a silly little girl, wasting her time on her silly work.

John did this for the readers. She needed to be told. She needed to be put in her place. He will drag her (by the hair, naturally) to a noticeboard to be topic banned from the area she is the recognised Wikipedia expert in, if she gives him any more of her back talk.

Welcome to Wikipedia. They're literally blind to who they are and what they do. You can tell them a thousand times, and Lord knows the world has tried, it won't sink in.

BrownHairedGirl has been subject to sexist abuse like this for years, which for all its sexism, is still just basically abuse. Theoretically prohibited attacks of a personal nature, the gendered overtones merely an accepted part of Wikipedia culture. Not for the first time, she rose to the bait, and got served with a double helping back.

It is understandable that she tries to fight these battles on her own. After all, who could should she possibly turn to for help? Which of her fellow Administrators. Maybe Drmies? He is, after all, regularly boastful about how he is a feminist and all. And powerful, as John says. Maybe she should turn to the other powerful women of Wikipedia for a bit of sisterly backup. Maybe Ealdgyth, Bishonen, or Opabina Regalis. Yeah, they'll show Drmies who is boss, his Wikipedia girlfriends.

He's the boss.

John from Idegon here, is obviously his loyal and humble servant. All very Medieval, is it not? John of Idegon more like.

On that note.....
Idegon is my made up name for the Ontario, Oregon micropolitan area, an area in Eastern Oregon and Western Idaho, not quite in the Boise metropolitan area, and politically and philosophically as far away from Portland as you can possibly get.

In October of 2013, I changed my name from Gtwfan52 to John from Idegon. Although the Gtwfan52 name had served me well for nearly two years, I feel that as long as I am going to continue doing this, I should have a proper name for people to address me by. I've been answering to John for a long while IRL, so why not here too?
Always good to know the proper form of address the men of Wikipedia wish to use. He goes by John in real life. Is that because his real name sounds a little less manly? Dwaine, for example?

Oh, and there's this......
By the way, "Gtwfan" referenced one of my two all time favorite railroads, the Grand Trunk Western. The other is the South Shore.
What? You mean you didn't realise from the above heartfelt defence of all that is noble and right in the world of encyclopedia making, that this Knight of Wikipedia has a favourite railroad? Two, in fact.

Yeah, 'fraid so. This is Wikipedia. A place where a woman can't even be subjected to sexist abuse by real men, like steelworkers and shit. Was he ever even really a hotel manager? Could he have perhaps been their janitor, his wonderful story of the calendar in the locker having merely been overheard as workplace gossip, perhaps being embellished with a little fantasy role play of what he would do if he had real power over women in real life?

Oh wise and benevolent John of Idegon. Please drag me to your office and bestow your kind favours on me, your ever loyal hard working servant.

Wikipedia. It's all fucked up.

Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:28 am
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Typical Wikipedia sexism. When confronted with his behaviour, he suddenly finds he has better things to do with his time than talk to the woman he has offended, and if she has a problem with him, it turns out she's the one who has to take him to a noticeboard. Fancy that.
Hey, mister hard man who thinks he is so desperately clever that in addition to going to other editor's user pages to pick fights, responding swearily and aggressively to a civil explanation, now calls me too fucking dense to understand and threatens to drag you to a noticeboard.

So, like some sort of virtual Fred Flinstone, you're gong to use all your macho muscles and sweariness to pull a woman around?

Wow. Just wow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

In your words, YOU are having a problem with a HANDFUL of other editors over a thing. You are the only one having this problem, it is with multiple editors, and this isn't the first time. What would you call it besides dense that you absolutely refuse to even acknowledge that the problem here may be you? Playing the race card is a loser's arguement- the same applies to playing the sex card. Hence I'm instructing you to not post here any further. If you have a problem with my behavior you should know where the noticeboards are, and I'd assume you, with all your vast experience have a fair understanding of boomerang too. Good bye. John from Idegon (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
He was so afraid of what she might do to him next, he could only dare to leave that up for half an hour...... ... =874959393

Never has the phrase all mouth and no trousers been more apt.

Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:07 am
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3391
Reply with quote
So! What a story! Well, that brown haird girl did in my opinion the only right thing, trowing that childish red cat in the trash. Away with it. Mies is swimming for years and years in the wiki sewer, bend often to please someone, that is complete clear to me, but she is my girl.
Almost arb, and a arb in the past! A professor, a sysop, give me a break!

Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan

Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:37 pm
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Honestly, what an absolute utter prick this guy is......
I'm sorry you are having difficulty with Wikipedia, but frankly you are making your own problems. It's not unusual to come to Wikipedia with misconceptions - most people do. Your edits at Shelby, North Carolina were removed by an experienced editor, who requested references for your changes. Per one of our pillar policies, WP:V, particularly the subsection linked at WP:BURDEN, when an edit is removed for lacking sources, you are required to provide said sources prior to replacing the edit. It is in no way optional. Just as so to give you a better understanding of what a Wikipedia article is, like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means every single thing in the article must come from reliable published sources - everything. Nothing whatsoever can come from what you know. See WP:OR. All an encyclopedia article is (or should be) is a summary of what has been written about the subject of the article in reliable secondary sources. It isn't for the subject of the article and it absolutely cannot promote the subject of the article. The fact that you have a connection to the subject of the article does not give you any extra privilege regarding editing the article. I'd say it's irrelevant, but it does have relevance if you continue to disregard WP:OWN. The relevance is explained at WP:COI. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Magnolia677 did with you, as am I. It's clear you're simply unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, and both he and I are trying to instruct you. I hope you can see fit to learn to work within our collaborative project. John from Idegon (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That patronising pile of crap (replete with the usual alphabet soup) was posted to a user who is doing nothing more harmful to Wikipedia than trying to add details he knows about his town, to his town's article. Does it have a train service? Does it have a mall? Basic, obvious shit, that by rights should not still be missing from Wikipedia after NINETEEN YEARS of it masquerading as knowledge.

The conflict of interest this retard is referring to, is non-existent. He asks the user to assume good faith, when from his perspective, all they are doing is removing true information. This idiot's claim that basic shit like the absence of a train service is of course not likely to be challenged, since it is very fucking easily verified, and so no, it cannot legitimately just be yanked out pending verification. That extremely hostile approach is reserved for direct quotations and controversy. Rather than talking down (and talking bollocks) to this newcomer, they should be reading the fucking policies they linked but clearly don't understand. And when he has understood it, tell the other fucker he refers to, not to be so hostile with the revert button.

Classic example of why Wikipedia is a faillure. The established editors are absolute fucking assholes, and clueless with it. What on Earth do they think they're achieving? Other than power tripping. Why is he even watching this article if he has so little interest in retaining valid information on it? If he doesn't like polishing the worthwhile but otherwise not perfect addictions of newcomers, why the holy fuck is he even a Wikipedia editor? Prat.

Totally obvious why he saught out Drmies for help. He is exactly the Administrator you need when you want a newcomer to be threatened and intimidated, and have your hostile approach validated.

Clueless editing, clueless Administration. Dying encyclopedia.


Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:07 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 4 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.