User talk:Prometheuspan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Prometheuspan/archive1

User talk:prometheuspan/ArbcomCase


User talk:Prometheuspan2

Contents

[edit] Sabotage of Wikipedia

In response to your message of 13th June 2006: Thanks for smiling at me on my talk page. I was slow to understand that as a form of communication, so it took me a bit to come look at your personpage, and find the "sabotage of Wikipedia" article.

In essence, we have both uncovered the same problem, and i would be interested in hearing about any (apparently low stress) ideas you might have for dealing with this problem. I have been considering writing suggested policy; i only recently realized that anybody can do that.

My response: I regret the delay in responding. Today being a Saturday, I am trying to catch on with pending replies. I thank you for your message. I am sure that the wiki-community will evolve stricter norms to protect our contents. In case, you desire to write any policy papaer, I encourage you to please do so. Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 09:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's talk page

Yes, perhaps I let my frustration get the better of me. Saving Wikipedia will require charm, guile and politicking (not my strong points...), not just an awareness of whats wrong and what needs changing. I hope someone has the talent to get the job done. - Xed 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a lot!

The Surreal Barnstar
For valiantly enlightening Jimbo that Wikipedia has become abusive and a host of big political groupthink; and for defending me so altruistically against a troll and a stalker group-thinkers in a RFAR process I was unjustly dragged to. Cesar Tort 18:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Careful

I saw this edit summary: [1]. Lets refrain from doing edit summaries such as that.--MONGO 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA due to this edit--MONGO 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Stop filling up my talk page with your nonsense.--MONGO 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, well, you can call that a personal attack all you like. as far as i am concerned, its a factual observation. so you are an admin, and i'm just a small time editor. now that we are involved in a conflict, why don't you block me? even tho its against the rules, that apparently doesn't stop you with others. "nonsense" thats your favorite ad hominem, isn't it? Prometheuspan 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your posts on MONGO's page...

...keep popping up on my watchlist. I see that you posted on the page again one minute after he requested you to stop (which was only after a long barrage of taunts from you). Perhaps you didn't see his request. Please don't post on his page again; I will block you for harassment if you do. Bishonen | talk 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against disruption. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.
Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator..

The block was made by User:Tony Sidaway largely in response to trolling of User:MONGO. It has been discussed on the Administrators' Noticeboard and has strong support from numerous admins.

Rather than "strong support from numerous admins", Tony's actions (including his contention that 'Our only appropriate words to him are "fuck off"') have led to criticism from several editors, including:
  1. Tony's unnecessary choice of word serves no purpose. User:Jahiegel
  2. "You've been banned" is appropriate. "Fuck off" is not. … Name-calling, brawls and shouting matches: not part of building an encyclopedia, and not part of the repertoire of behaviour acceptable to the community. - User:Nunh-huh
  3. Tony, you're a real dick sometimes. You're often arrogant and condescending to other editors, and all too frequently neglect the social niceties that help keep a community running smoothly. - User:TenOfAllTrades
  4. …this is unproductive. Do you wish to convince us that you're capable of being just as immature as any troll? How many of us have to point out that civility matters before you believe it? Why not be a model of civility, instead of a terrific example of how not to act on a Wiki? Can't you do it? -User:GTBacchus
-Xed 10:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But nobody seems to be disputing the block, which was the point. Just zis Guy you know? 10:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not alter my posts. - Xed 11:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This user seems to be nothing but disruptive; I hardly notice any useful contributions and for some reason I feel that this user always winds up in disputes on Wikipedia. I hardly believe that it's the fault of everyone else. I heartily support this block due to this user's trouble making history. However, I am not entirely unbiased as I have had difficulties with this user myself. After a while, I just had to stop communicating with the user altogether. --Strothra 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of story

All: This is a classical story featuring a newbie with big aspirations. Prometheuspan believes that the project is doomed. He wants to save it by substantially reforming Wikipedia in terms of rules, more policing and the like. Above all, he wants intervention by Jimbo/Foundation to achieve such change overnight. This is a phase some new editors go through. It often goes away with experience (on Wikipedia and elsewhere). In the case of this user what little experience he has gained doing real work building the encyclopedia has not changed his early verdict on WP one iota. That still would not be a problem if he would use existing processes to gradually work toward change. However, he is convinced (probably correctly) that the consensus process is not going to effect the radical changes he envisions anywhere soon. Under the circumstances it's only logical that he did not go there but tried to engage Jimbo in discussion. The latter, however, has heard it all before and, unsurprisingly, did not respond.

Editors who arrive at this point usually realize there's nothing they can do here except for editing articles. Some do, others leave the project entirely. This user is one of the special brand that prefer to make a big noise to get their way.

Prometheuspan: You want to change a winning team because you believe it isn't winning. Like it or not, this is how WP works, how it has become what it is. Its pure wiki approach is carried by the bulk of its editors. It's true, the process is often tedious, and it does turn some (but by no means all) experts away. But what makes Wikipedia tick is the brute force of thousands upon thousands of dedicated editors who are experts when it comes to building the incredible encyclopedia-generating machine called the Wikipedia community. We don't need world experts in various disciplines/fields on board (although they can sometimes speed up the wiki process). What we need: their knowledge, findings, opinions, and so on. Information available in spades to those looking for it. Experts generate knowledge. The Wikipedia community mines, organizes and presents that knowledge - in short, we generate an encyclopedia. And the best is yet to come.

So you believe in logic. It now dictates that you should either conform to the way things are done on Wikipedia (I think you have what it takes to become a valued editor), or leave the project. You may also want to exercise your right to fork or join a project already based on the principles you so sorely miss here at Wikipedia. Making a bloody nuisance of yourself is not going to work here. And if you don't follow your own logic, it will be applied for you. It probably hasn't escaped you that it's been done already.

Take it or leave it. AvB ÷ talk 08:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saw some of your posts on kaneh bosem

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kabbalistic_tree_of_life_plus_hemp.png

Cheers, --TaylorOliphant (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)