Wikipedia Critics: an Intellectual Analysis

[CrowsNest]

this thread is good as it is.

No it is not.

I just because some fool made you mall cop won't make this a true statement, certainly not when you're issuing new (and entirely undocumented) rules left and right which show that if you were being an upstanding moderator looking out only for the good of the forum, there is stuff here you would have to delete, and to not do so is merely confirmation you're singling me out for punishment for holding you to account.

It's a dirty Wikipedian tactic is what it is.

Gaslighting is what it is. No wonder you changed your name.

[JuiceBeetle]

Well if you don't learn the difference between a rant and a criticism, you better clear your diary for the next month at least.

We can agree that we have a different definition for rant vs. criticism, about which I don't want to debate you, just remind you: if your definition would be the more appropriate, then you would be the moderator.

there is stuff here you would have to delete

Please link those posts.

[CrowsNest]

a different definition for rant vs. criticism, about which I don't want to debate you, just remind you: if your definition would be the more appropriate, then you would be the moderator.

As I have said many times, I was offered it multiple times, the first based purely on my reputation before I had even posted, as someone who doesn't talk shit and knows what a well run critic forum needs. I declined it for my own reasons, not fully appreciating the danger of ending up being messed around by a clueless idiot like you.

I guess this is proof you don't listen at all. Colour me surprised.

By all means, resign so I can take up the post. But I have a feeling you won't be giving up the power to shape your own reputation, will you? Not like you can earn one on your own merits, is it?

there is

stuff here you would have to delete

Please link those posts.

Now you really are showing yourself to be incompetent. You've already seen them, they were among the many things you have brushed under the carpet into the hidden thread you claim everyone objected to being public.

[Anyone]

MODS -- please get rid of this clown. Delete its inane rants, too. It's worse than Kumioko.

[Anyone]

Anyone said:

What is it, then, that makes you think he's some sort of critic?

I was thinking about things such as ... his stance against TFA

I hear you, I really do. But I don't think he's a true Wikipedia critic. I think he's just letting off steam re: 2 or 3 stupid policies.

I happen to agree with him on the TFA issue. His point here is that TFAs ought to be locked as they invariably get hit badly by vandals, and it's then up to the article creator to clean up the damage. And that can take quite a long time. Been there, seen it, done it. Twice, in fact. Madness.

Let's me show you something funny.

I wrote an FA / TFA about a cannon in Penang. It's actually quite a major tourist attraction. If you've been there you'll know what I mean.

So I wrote the article, but didn't have a photo. Then I found this pic on some Asian guy's blog:



Not very good, is it? So I cut out the telephone cables, added a new sky, removed the traffic and chopped out the Asian guy. I ended up with this:



When the article was a TFA, some dude came along and deleted my photo.

He observed -- correctly -- that it was a "fake picture".

And for that .... he got blocked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seri_Rambai&diff=prev&oldid=771068307

So there you have a good example of how people sometimes get blocked despite doing the right thing.

[CrowsNest]

MODS -- please get rid of this clown. Delete its inane rants, too. It's worse than Kumioko.

Pretty sure I replied to this post.

Juice must be covering his ass again.

[Anyone]

Regrettably, it's time to focus once again on the great unwashed down in our steerage compartment.

Junior Critics

Neotarf / Madame Gender
I only know about this nonsense because Graaf mentions it all the time. The blog appears to be a random assortment of trivia, gender-related issues and the occasional piece of superficial Wikipedia criticism. I assume the blog is aimed at lesbians and limp-wristed men looking for a mother figure.

CONS
The blog is messy and amateurish. Neotarf is a good writer [way better than most Wikipedia critics], but urgently needs a proper WordPress template.

PROS
Well, at least Neotarf has her own blog. That's more than can be said for some of our other Junior Critics. In addition, I wonder if she might be a Catholic. My son and his Thai mother are Catholics.

RATING
4/10

Rogol Domedonfors
Rogol is a very strange man. I'm not even sure he's human. According to Neotarf, the gentleman operates a blog, https://ampridatvir.home.blog/, though as yet it's a tad spartan. Perhaps he'll develop it over the coming months.

CONS
The poor man seems to have lost the plot.

PROS
Again, at least he has his own blog.

RATING
2.5/10

[Graaf Statler]

Is it Any?What is wrong with this blog post?
Has not much to do with who she is sharing here bed and is absolute not gender related, isn't it?

https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2019/10/13/lack-of-strategy/

[Anyone]

Is it Any?What is wrong with this blog post?
Has not much to do with who she is sharing here bed and is absolute not gender related, isn't it?

https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2019/1 ... -strategy/

So what? All I'm seeing is this:



But hey -- if that makes you happy, cool.

[Graaf Statler]

Block!

But I have to say you are really dammed good, Any. I saw it only because you pointed at it.

Can't you make something with Abd and the princess in a Discord tree house? Please.......

I'll shall post later a few pic's of Italy.