|
It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet or impersonator of Ndru01. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets/Ndru01 for evidence. See block log
|
Look, you're supposed to be blocked. You're supposed to be thinking about what you can do to solve the conflicts with other editors, not persisting in defying their decisions. Why not copy to your user space to work on until it doesn't have the problems I tried to explain here: Talk:Modern gnostic mysticism.
Why do you not trust people who have been editing Wikipedia longer than both of us put together? You are heading towards a permanent block. --Cedderstk 21:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not a matter of trust but of logic and good intentions. I trust whoever is worthy of trust. You yourself admitted that you 'stick' your nose into something. And you are persistent in that, and convincing others in your favor, when you yourself (who admitted that you say are not editing Wikipedia so long) might not fully understand why you are so persistent in that 'nose-sticking' in the first place. All the best.Infoandru01 00:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- As usual, I find it hard to understand what you have written. I'm not trying to 'convince' people of anything - remember I was neutral on the AfD? My original involvement was that my stated mission is to keep an eye on candidates for speedy deletion that might in fact become worthwhile articles (e.g. I have done precisely that at Orang minyak and Rob Buckman which were scheduled for speedy deletion). I thought Modern Gnosticism might be another, and did indeed succeed in saving what I thought of as the objective content, but left the relevant articles on my watchlist and so noticed when you violated policy by yet again recreating deleted content, and using a sockpuppet (second identity) to evade a block. The simplest (and usual) thing to do would be to add db-repost as Fuzzypeg does, but I have been resisting that, hoping that it might somehow be possible to add to the factual (as opposed to speculative) content on Wikipedia.
- I was suggesting that admins and policies are there for a reason, and you ought to abide by them as a responsible editor - you seem to be rejecting that there are 'logic and good intentions' there. Do please consider contributing to Wikipedia in your own language, or maybe Wikinfo. Best wishes. --Cedderstk 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
English is my 'own' language. Whatever language I learnt as first and second (my english is actually now better than that 2nd one) are less my own, and have very little to do with them and the nations that these languages are from. People here constantly fail to convince me in their good intentions and think apriori that they have more rights in something than myself. Whataver someone knows the best, he/she can contribute, but please let me contribute in what I can be most useful (which was reduced actually here on wikipedia to only 1 article) and I'm certainly competent in the material that is presented in that article. So I'd really like the admins to show that they are there for a reason driven by higher (noble) aims and not because of exercising their vanity and abusing their position.Infoandru01 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Ndru, which is the "only 1 article" that you're talking about? I'd be interested to have a look at your edits on it, if you believe they've had more acceptance from the community WP than your Modern Gnosticism edits.
- The admins are driven by the aims of enforcing Wikipedia policy. They may have their own personal aspirations, but in their role as an administrator their job is strictly to enforce WP policy, no more, no less. Nobility has nothing to do with it, unless you believe that the goals of Wikipedia are noble. Vanity has nothing to do with it, since they're just enforcing clearly-stated policies. That's their job!
- Wikipedia is a system that runs according to certain rules. It may seem, when you first arrive here, that there are no real rules and anything can happen, anyone can write what they want, however you quickly become aware that this is not the case at all. There is a powerful system that keeps articles in check; it works well, and it's basically impossible to evade it. Wikipedia policy has the final word on everything.
- Also, there is a strong community focus in Wikipedia. Content decisions are made by the general community, much like in the peer review process; you can't operate on your own, regardless of whether you think you're right or not. And if you disgrace yourself with the rest of the community, you're going to have enormous difficulty achieving anything. Fuzzypeg 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)