User talk:65.27.75.56

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html

Yeah, you must be really proud of your vandalism, aren't you? RickK 21:50, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I second that. Are you happy? You picked the LEAST interesting subjects that NO ONE in their right mind is interested in and made minor changes to them, thus "proving" that Wikipedia is nonauthoritative? Bull. Your attack on this community is a slap in the face to every wiki citizen. This is a community based upon truth and NPOV, and you do us a disservice by portraying our work as something to not trust. I think the vast majority of slashdotters agree with me too. You're a common vandal. --Abqcat 01:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes a vandal indeed. Wikipedia is the most popular internet encyclopedia, and is in the top 500 most visted websites on the net. Every month, Wikipedia is cited by tens of thousands of students, hundreds of news articles, has even been used in court. Vandalism by entering false information is a serious offence and you could be pernemently banned from the project and you could be reported to your ISP for your abuse. Wikipedia is successful because vandals are not allowed. You are troll and you know it. 82.32.35.210 10:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're a fine one to talk. Again, Fuck off. PhilHibbs 10:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Come on, try to form sentences that don't rely on an expletive to get your point across. I could have sworn up and down at this guy, but if he points out a possible problem with wikimedia, then good. As I understand it, change patrolling is already in the works for 1.4 (vs. 1.3x that Wikipedia currently uses). I still think he's a vandal. Tests of accuracy in Wikipedia should be conducted non-destructively and in a way that won't alienate the very folks who can "fix" the "problem" that he "found". --ABQCat 05:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fuck off, troll. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

its sad that anyone would actually site the wiki as a verifiable source...this is not a real encyclopedia...it never will be...vandalism...of what?

I just ran across the Wikipedia test, and am in fact searching for "Georgia in Song" :) . To be fair, the time in which the errors appeared in the articles was way too short to be a meaningful test. In defense of Wikipedia, editors do try to flag articles that do not adequately cite their sources, resulting in documentation of sources that is much more extensive than, for example, the sources of a physical encyclopedia. Ontario Emperor 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)