Ritchie333

[Graaf Statler]

One of the most powerful mods on Wikipedia-NL, Xxmarijnw is just a kid, and I think that Ymnes too. Because ones when Ymnes wanted to become a Arb (Yes really), Woudloper wrote in his comment you are far to young.
And that Xxmarijnw is really a kid, not a teenager, no a small boy. It's hard to say for me how old he is exacte, someone showed me a picture a while ago of him, but it would be surprising to me if he was already twelve years old.

And yes, he did me the favour [img=https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sjabloon:Global_WMF-legal_ban&action=history]to create this template[/img]. Special for me! It is really unbelievable WMF allowed minors to be a sysop on Wikipedia. Or minors? No kids!

[AndrewForson]

Please don't use this word.

On what grounds? Per the forum rules, you can expect to read unpleasant speech here.

... and per the forum rules, you can expect to read polite requests to avoid being unpleasant. Saying that it must be OK because there isn't an explicit rule against it is the sort of argument one is accustomed to hearing from an eight-year old. You don't have that excuse.

Just to make it perfectly clear, using this particular word at all gives rise to a definite suspicion that you are deliberately behaving like an arsehole, and defending yourself in this way removes much of whatever doubt remains. That makes it less likely that people will take any notice of whatever point you were trying to make, and impoverishes the discussion for the rest of us. I don't know why you would want to do that.

[CrowsNest]

Please don't use this word.

On what grounds? Per the forum rules, you can expect to read unpleasant speech here.

... and per the forum rules, you can expect to read polite requests to avoid being unpleasant.

Are you sure?

Saying that it must be OK because there isn't an explicit rule against it is the sort of argument one is accustomed to hearing from an eight-year old. You don't have that excuse.

I don't think eight years olds operate the way you think they do. I've certainly never seen one ask such a question. I've seen parents talk like this, but only when talking to an actual eight year old. Is that the tone you were aiming for here?

Just to make it perfectly clear, using this particular word at all gives rise to a definite suspicion that you are deliberately behaving like an arsehole, and defending yourself in this way removes much of whatever doubt remains.

I wouldn't have said arsehole, but I think I had already removed any doubt that I am trying to be offensive, specifically why and to who.

That makes it less likely that people will take any notice of whatever point you were trying to make, and impoverishes the discussion for the rest of us. I don't know why you would want to do that.

It depends on whether you agree with these propositions. I don't. I have said before, I certainly don't post here for the benefit of people who are so easily distracted or dissuaded. If meticulously polite presentations of Wikipedia's faults had cut through potential, then I am sure Eric would not feel this forum was remotely necessary. My position is, and I am quite sure he agrees, we are here to present Wikipedia's faults to the world with maximum force. The management has taken particular steps to ensure we can do that.

Anyone offended by merely reading the word "mong", anyone who cannot see why it was used, is of no use to me. They are not my intended audience, they will not have within them the level of insight or sense of injustice that is required to be a serious Wikipedia critic. A person like that would be reaching for their smelling salts after one pass over AN/I. I'm really trying to reach people whose first reaction is to reach for a baseball bat. Metaphorically speaking of course.

[AndrewForson]

Anyone offended by merely reading the word "mong", anyone who cannot see why it was used, is of no use to me.

I think that says it all really. Arsehole.

[CrowsNest]

Anyone offended by merely reading the word "mong", anyone who cannot see why it was used, is of no use to me.

I think that says it all really. Arsehole.

This isn't a Safe Space, I'm not obligated to make you feel useful or shield you from offensive speech. If you have a complaint, report me, I'm certainly not here to have an argument with you.

[AndrewForson]

This isn't a Safe Space, I'm not obligated to make you feel useful or shield you from offensive speech. If you have a complaint, report me, I'm certainly not here to have an argument with you.

I'm telling you that whatever it is you're trying to do here will be more effective if you refrain from casual slurs against people with chromosomal disorders. If you want to be less effective, that's your choice. It's a bad one. Whatever it is you're trying to do here will be more effective if you free yourself of the notion that other people are solely to be of use to you, or to gain your approval. Again that's your choice, and again you have made a bad one. Whatever it is you're trying to do here will be more effective if you free yourself of the assumption that everyone who gives you good advice is a entitled millennial special snowflake. Again that's your choice, and again you have made a bad one.

[CrowsNest]

This isn't a Safe Space, I'm not obligated to make you feel useful or shield you from offensive speech. If you have a complaint, report me, I'm certainly not here to have an argument with you.

I'm telling you that whatever it is you're trying to do here will be more effective if you refrain from casual slurs against people with chromosomal disorders. If you want to be less effective, that's your choice. It's a bad one. Whatever it is you're trying to do here will be more effective if you free yourself of the notion that other people are solely to be of use to you, or to gain your approval. Again that's your choice, and again you have made a bad one. Whatever it is you're trying to do here will be more effective if you free yourself of the assumption that everyone who gives you good advice is a entitled millennial special snowflake. Again that's your choice, and again you have made a bad one.

We've been down this road before. You have little understanding of my motives of methods, despite me having detailed them many times before, but it never seems to stop you telling me they don't work or I should change. Equating Safe Spaces with "entitled millennial special snowflake" is not a mistake I would have made. You make far too many assumptions full stop. It is you who needs a bit more clarity about what you do and why, or so it seems to me. I've said that before, I'm sure.

[AndrewForson]

We've been down this road before. You have little understanding of my motives of methods, despite me having detailed them many times before, but it never seems to stop you telling me they don't work or I should change. Equating Safe Spaces with "entitled millennial special snowflake" is not a mistake I would have made. You make far too many assumptions full stop. It is you who needs a bit more clarity about what you do and why, or so it seems to me. I've said that before, I'm sure.

Well, that's me told, then, isn't it. All you have to do to clinch your argument, is to describe some of the successes that your motives and methods have achieved. Don't be shy, five or six would be fine.

[CrowsNest]

We've been down this road before. You have little understanding of my motives of methods, despite me having detailed them many times before, but it never seems to stop you telling me they don't work or I should change. Equating Safe Spaces with "entitled millennial special snowflake" is not a mistake I would have made. You make far too many assumptions full stop. It is you who needs a bit more clarity about what you do and why, or so it seems to me. I've said that before, I'm sure.

Well, that's me told, then, isn't it. All you have to do to clinch your argument, is to describe some of the successes that your motives and methods have achieved. Don't be shy, five or six would be fine.

We've done that before too, which is why I think you're now asking for five or six rather than two or three. Put it this way, do I come across as the kind of idiot who happily wastes his time? I don't like wasting my time unless I set out to do so, one can't fill the day with 100% productivity, which is why I've never been enthused by any of your proposed schemes.

[AndrewForson]

Put it this way, do I come across as the kind of idiot who happily wastes his time? I don't like wasting my time unless I set out to do so, one can't fill the day with 100% productivity, which is why I've never been enthused by any of your proposed schemes.

In a word, yes. You spend your time here on loud, voluminous and rude argumentation with things you say people on other sites might have done, said or think that you disagree with; with people on this site that you disagree with and even, amazingly enough, with people who actually agree with you, just not slavishly enough. There is no reason to believe that your incessant postings are intended to achieve anything at all in the real world, or that they have done so. As a hobby designed to fill your otherwise idle hours, no doubt it has some value to you, and that is the yardstick by which you measure everyone and everything that you encounter here. If you actually wanted to expose the corruption and incompetence of the Wikimedia movement, the Foundation and its chapters; or to provide evidence for the disastrous and corupting effect Wikipedia and the other projects are having on human knowledge; or to discuss, plan or execute effective action to counteract those corruptions -- then you have a very strange and ineffectual way of doing so.