From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archive of my very best wiki-friends whose truth and knowledge shine across the world wide web. 1.1 AkFrost 1.2 Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts 1.3 Aussie"Legend" 1.4 Aussie"Legend" 1.5 Re: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Macktheknifeau 2 Other Stuff 2.1 Re: Grammar Nazi

[edit] Archive of my very best wiki-friends whose truth and knowledge shine across the world wide web.

[edit] AkFrost

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts

This is an alert that your etiquette has been challenged at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Macktheknifeau. Specifically in regards to your archive. AKFrost (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Um, I did not lose the AfD because there is nothing winning or losing about AfD's. The point of AfD's is to bring it to attention to people who care that their article fails a quality, and that if they don't improve the article, it should be deleted. You provided sources for the claims, so I retracted the AfD. I don't know what meaning you hold about "losing" the AfD. As far as I'm concerned, there was no win or loss. Wikipedia has two of its articles improved, nothing more.
• What you have here is a failure to Assume good faith. I am not nominating the articles because I have a personal vendetta against any of them, but rather they aren't up to par with other articles and doesn't seem to have anybody updating it to conform. Had I not nominated the AfD, are you really going to provide the scans that convinced me of its notability? Again, you suffer from the assumption that you don't have to explain yourself because everything you do is self-evident. Well, guess what, nobody can read your mind. If you don't speak it, it will be ignored.
• As for accusing me of incivility, I distinctly remember you beating the dead horse about my statement that it is possible that the articles can be bribed. If you actually read WP:CIVIL to begin with, you'd notice that rudeness is the first thing on the list. Also, what you wrote on my Userpage was complete taunting. I don't know what made you think you can talk down to me, or that somehow rules only apply to me and you're free to ignore everything if it doesn't suit you.
• Finally, You realize you can get censured just for your comments about me being an arse and that Bleach is a "crappy japanese childrens cartoon". You'll notice that Bleach is making more money than your mod ever will. You have no right to belittle a multi-million dollar franchise while pushing your own freeware, beta-stage game. To each his own. You don't like Bleach, that doesn't mean it's crappy. Again, you're pushing your own judgments over other people and construing as fact. You think it's crappy? Well, substantiate it, why is it crappy? (Not why YOU think it's crappy. Your thoughts count no more than mine).
• Neither of what you did is even remotely allowed by WP:Civil You accuse me of being incivil about pointing out that you can't edit adequately (going so far as posting sources on the AfD page but not the main page).
• Again, you're still being pretentious, that somehow your judgment is better than mine. In fact, the only edit you made after I nominated the AfD was add a claim (which you substantiated later, after I accused you of being pretentious). that alone does not make the article any more improved. In fact, if there is anything that saved the article, it's me putting your links up as sources. Nobody will go to the AfD to look for sources, they would expect it in article.
• From what I've seen below, you yourself aren't under fire from just myself. For once, consider your own faults before making accusations that someone else is being an arse.
• Finally, enjoy your own hollow "victory" know that you only won because I retracted the claim. I am interested in improving wikipedia, while you're here apparently just to push your own views. Compromise is a skill you will need to learn. AKFrost (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't care As an aside, it's not my mod, I don't play the game it's based from or even own it. And if I did, it would not bother to me if it was not making money, because mod makers do not make mods to make money. Bleach is a crap japanese childrens cartoon. Retracting the claim? Either way you lose.I've been "underfire" from 1 other person like yourself who thinks they know everything. Now go away. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aussie"Legend"

Ridiculous allegations by you at WP:WQA If we do the same for you, excluding posts made at WP:WQA, we get 120 edits out of 511.[1] That's 23.48% which is a lot more than 15% meaning that, using your own logic, your account is far closer to a SPA than mine is. --AussieLegend 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Except none of my edits were guarding the page like a hawk and starting huge edit wars/administrative disputes. Mine were simple basic edits WITH notably references and citations, which you then took major offence too as the guardian of all that is exetel. Plus I've created a few pages that actually matter, and done stuff before I even looked at the exetel article (I built the current cold war crisis page months before you created the huge edit war. Macktheknifeau 09:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that your edits didn't start edit wars or administrative disputes is pure rubbish. You were the one unjustly claiming people were sockpuppets and you did open a mediation case when you didn't get your way. Your first edits on the page, which were what caused the initial problems, were unsubstantiated and unreferenced[2] and were made only because you were banned from the Exetel forums.[3] so claiming that they were referenced with citations is also rubbish. The diffs speak for themselves.

You claim that despite my 1,271 non Exetel edits, the fact that I've made 177 Exetel related edits makes my account a SPA. My point was that as a percentage you've made far more Exetel edits than I so, while your account may not originally have been created as a SPA, it has become one, using your logic at least. I don't believe that by the way. I was just pointing out the absurdity of your claims.

Continuing to claim that I have a "squad of sock-puppets" or that I would pass on information to "exetel higher-ups" is beyond absurd. It's bordering on libellous and if you contnue I will have to seek administrative redress so, please stop. --AussieLegend 10:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

blah blah blah I don't care. I had enough of your trash back in whenever it was dealth with. Please stop posting your garbage in my talk area. If I have "become a SPA" why have I not been editing the exetel page? Why did I stop after I left the ISP? Why would I bother making entirely new pages on completely unrelated matters both before and after your constant revisionism and page after page of talk spam and wiki-lawyering kept me from caring about the page (which was your objective from the beginning no doubt).

The fact remains your account was STARTED to guard the exetel page. It has continually shown itself as being as close to a SPA as you can be without being an SPA, and I think at the your obvious bias and inability to civilly address the article using proper wiki rules and guidelines (not just the parts you pluck out to wikilawyer and pick and choose certain edits to make things look better for you) when regarding the exetel article means you should be barred completely from editing any page relating to exetel.

"libellous"? Do you even listen to yourself? You are a sad e-thug wannabe who spends most of his online time guarding a website for a company who does not give a rat's arse about you and would drop you in a heartbeat if it made them more money, and does it by ignoring the principles this site was built on, and does it by threatening legal action against people.

I shall list the ways my words are not "libellous":

• My words are an honestly held opinion or criticism.
• My opinion expressed above is so trivial that you are extremely UNlikely (if it is "defamation") to be proven to cause harm to you.
• My opinion does not identify you or a group of your peers.
• My opinion would not cause you to be hated by a group of your peers.

That is without discussing the cost and time required by you, or the way the matter would possibly have to be conducted in the United States, where this is "published".

Please don't attempt to bully me with the law. Wikilawyering won't work in the real world.

I should remind you that accusing someone of making libellous remarks is in and of itself potentially libellous, so I would advise you do not attempt to accuse me of being such in the future.

Macktheknifeau 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"If I have "become a SPA" why have I not been editing the exetel page? Why did I stop after I left the ISP?"

You've completely missed the point. As I said, I don't believe your account is a SPA. It is your logic that says it is.

"Why did I stop after I left the ISP? Why would I bother making entirely new pages on completely unrelated matters"

I too have edited other pages. More than you in fact. I've also created unrelated pages as well as templates. SO, if what you've done doesn't make you a SPA how is it that my account is when I've done the same as you?

"The fact remains your account was STARTED to guard the exetel page."

That's an unsubstantiated, false and unsupportable allegation. I've asked you to stop. This is the last time I intend to. Your latest post breaches bot WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL --AussieLegend 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop posting your garbage in my talk area.

Out of your first 100 edits, had less than a dozen unique (ie non-minor) edits, the rest of them discussed/edited exetel article. Your first edit was in the exetel article. Seems pretty straightforward that your account was STARTED to guard the exetel article. You continue to guard the article, and continue to wiki lawyer and talkbash anyone who tries to introduce edits, both of which are against wiki guidelines.

On that basis I call you (as near as you can be without being a true) SPA.

My account, unlike your account which had an exetel edit as it's FIRST edit, and most of your first 100 edits being exetel edits, my first exetel edit was my 185th edit. I think I've made ONE edit to exetel since I got bored and tired of your wiki-lawyering and also left the ISP because of it's horrible browsing and p2p speeds and terrible gaming pings.

So yeah, You = near SPA, me = Not SPA. Macktheknifeau 14:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aussie"Legend"

Please stop posting your garbage in my talk area.

Out of your first 100 edits, had less than a dozen unique (ie non-minor) edits, the rest of them discussed/edited exetel article. Your first edit was in the exetel article. Seems pretty straightforward that your account was STARTED to guard the exetel article. You continue to guard the article, and continue to wiki lawyer and talkbash anyone who tries to introduce edits, both of which are against wiki guidelines.

On that basis I call you (as near as you can be without being a true) SPA.

My account, unlike your account which had an exetel edit as it's FIRST edit, and most of your first 100 edits being exetel edits, my first exetel edit was my 185th edit. I think I've made ONE edit to exetel since I got bored and tired of your wiki-lawyering and also left the ISP because of it's horrible browsing and p2p speeds and terrible gaming pings.

So yeah, You = near SPA, me = Not SPA. Macktheknifeau 14:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Macktheknifeau

Hi Macktheknifeau,

I just wanted to drop a quick note regarding the alert linked above. From looking at your interactions with AKFrost, it seems that the best thing to do for the time being is simply disengage from each other as you suggested. I've proposed this at WP:WQA, and since you haven't posted in the thread in the past day or so I wanted to make sure that you'd still agree to this as a solution.

While I've noted in the thread that there are some issues with AKFrost's conduct as well, I'd like to suggest to you that you try and be more civil in the future. I'm sure you've realized by now that calling people names, taunting them, or otherwise engaging in ad hominem attacks are simply not productive, and your time could be better spent working on articles and other tasks. If you feel you are right, the best thing to do is simply present your evidence, provide some relevant commentary, and let the facts speak for themselves. --jonny-mt 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Stuff

[edit] Re: Grammar Nazi

Hi. You were one of the editors discussing whether or not the article grammar nazi would qualify for a move to Wikitionary or its deletion. I made a proposal in the article's discussion if you're interested in participating. --76.214.226.199 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)