Orange Rocks
Thoughts
editWhen I first started contibuting, I had no idea about copyright and notabiltiy issues, three of my articles got deleted even though I had actually got permission from the webmasters of the sites from which I based the articles. I have only recreated one of those bios - the chap it was about has since been awarded an Oxford professorship. When one editor decided one of my articles needed to be merged because "they were the rules", I worked to prevent it, and in response, the editor took the article to AfD, which it survived. I never once thought of vandalising the place, I just carried on doing whatever I saw I could do to make it better. I am most upset by you saying you have added in dodgy info which you say is still undetected to this day, I think that's a real shame, to be informed that another user of cvu has/is done/doing this, even more so. I can only hope that whatever motivated you to make good faith contributions is not now beyond reach. --Alf melmac 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You are indefinately blocked. As such, you are not invited to contribute anywhere but here. There are several ways you may "fix" Wikipedia: ask to be permitted to restore your editing privledges, and make sound arguments for your case, or start your own Wiki project under your own rules (under GFDL, you may even start will all of the content of Wikipedia intact). Vandalizing becasue you don't like something is silly. In Letter from a Birmingham Jail, King wrote "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." Anon. vandalism is hardly accepting your punishment. --TeaDrinker 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Surely you don't see Wikipedia as a governing body? --TeaDrinker 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see the administrators, the arbcom, jimbo wales, and so forth as a governing body Orange Rocks 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose, so why be oppressed under the heal of these folks. Why not leave? --TeaDrinker 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because somewhere, my legitimate accounts convinced me that there was merit in the idea. And in some way, I stayed to fight for what was right for other people. I know that sounds like I take myself too seriously, but I am the kind of person who would rather change what's wrong than cut and run, just like the free french who stayed to fight the Nazis rather than running to Britain as they might have done. Orange Rocks 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- We're all here because we choose to be too. Here, and disliking of vandalism... To me, dictating "do it my way or I will attack" doesn't sound too much like fighting for the people. You may think your way is the best, you might even be right, but that is not the way to go about making decisions. --TeaDrinker 02:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's a very valid point, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is run by a cabal that can not be changed by those outside the cabal; a resort to civil disobedience is the only meaningful way to accomplish anything. Just as so many resistance movements have resorted to bombs when words failed, some must resort to vandalism when the talking goes nowhere. Orange Rocks 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not a bit. As noted earlier, you are welcome to found a Wiki-project based on democratic principles. I don't see how founding another project is cutting and running. We can all move to your new wiki, if we so choose. And when you do, and someone dislikes your actions, may they vandalize your project until you make concessions? --TeaDrinker 02:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I have no web servers with which to host a website, but if I did, I welcome vandals with ideological disputes.
- Not a bit. As noted earlier, you are welcome to found a Wiki-project based on democratic principles. I don't see how founding another project is cutting and running. We can all move to your new wiki, if we so choose. And when you do, and someone dislikes your actions, may they vandalize your project until you make concessions? --TeaDrinker 02:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's a very valid point, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is run by a cabal that can not be changed by those outside the cabal; a resort to civil disobedience is the only meaningful way to accomplish anything. Just as so many resistance movements have resorted to bombs when words failed, some must resort to vandalism when the talking goes nowhere. Orange Rocks 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- We're all here because we choose to be too. Here, and disliking of vandalism... To me, dictating "do it my way or I will attack" doesn't sound too much like fighting for the people. You may think your way is the best, you might even be right, but that is not the way to go about making decisions. --TeaDrinker 02:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because somewhere, my legitimate accounts convinced me that there was merit in the idea. And in some way, I stayed to fight for what was right for other people. I know that sounds like I take myself too seriously, but I am the kind of person who would rather change what's wrong than cut and run, just like the free french who stayed to fight the Nazis rather than running to Britain as they might have done. Orange Rocks 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose, so why be oppressed under the heal of these folks. Why not leave? --TeaDrinker 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see the administrators, the arbcom, jimbo wales, and so forth as a governing body Orange Rocks 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can't see using someone elses property because you don't have it yourself as good justification. You are in the same position as Jimbo a few years ago. --TeaDrinker 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's not really using someone else's property at all. It's really just doing what wikipedia was intended for. After all, all wikipedia policies came from wikipedians
- But all of us wikipedians agreed to use it under the conditions it was provided. Jimbo is arbitor of all, has his shiny hat, and if we don't like it, we don't use his servers. --TeaDrinker 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- And that is, in a nutshell, the part of Wikipedia I can't stand. It's so true, though. So why don't I leave? Because it isn't Jimbo's encyclopedia. It's our encyclopedia. He may have created it and he may own the hardware, but people like you and me wrote the articles and in the end that's what Wikipedia is: the little people. Orange Rocks
- Under GDFL, you can take the work with you when you go. It isn't really Jimbo's either. Really the only thing you can't take is the server space... --TeaDrinker 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's not the issue I'm adressing at present. Yes anyone can take the content and go, but we built Wikipedia not Jimbo (sure he built the server space) and Wikipedia is more than the articles, it's also the community. As such it's a damn shame that the community is dominated by a few big admins. I understand that you want be to leave Wikipedia and you want Willy on Wheels and Bobby Boulders to leave to, but that's a mistake Willy and Bobby have put more of their time into this encyclopedia than just about anyone. As such, you should find a way to bring in the vandals. They (we?) have a lot to offer in return for a few little changes that much of the community already support. Orange Rocks
- I suppose I have been hardened against vandals, even thoughtful and obviously intelligent ones. One chap was banned from here for WP:OWN issues in content disputes (and personal attacks, legal threats, and pretty much being a pain to deal with). He did not want to work with anyone, although his contributions had some value, he did not want anyone touching them (he considered himself a legal expert and worked mostly with law articles, so clearly his interpertation was correct). I don't know what to do with folks like him. At some point, it is nice to say "thanks but no thanks." He was blocked (and a few of his frequently-visited pages are still srotected, months later). I would love it if there were magical words to bring errant voices into the project, but some folks are simply more trouble to negotiate with than it is worth. I will contribute, and if the rules become to onerous, I will leave. I don't think we have reached that point however. Others have, and have left Wikipedia. Folks might want to switch to a different encyclopedia if there were another available; I see no reason why a community can not migrate to another server as well. The suggestions you have made regarding editing are not new. Maybe with time they will be adopted, but the road to that is discussion. Almost no one will respond to a vandal making suggestions or demands. --TeaDrinker 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's not the issue I'm adressing at present. Yes anyone can take the content and go, but we built Wikipedia not Jimbo (sure he built the server space) and Wikipedia is more than the articles, it's also the community. As such it's a damn shame that the community is dominated by a few big admins. I understand that you want be to leave Wikipedia and you want Willy on Wheels and Bobby Boulders to leave to, but that's a mistake Willy and Bobby have put more of their time into this encyclopedia than just about anyone. As such, you should find a way to bring in the vandals. They (we?) have a lot to offer in return for a few little changes that much of the community already support. Orange Rocks
- Under GDFL, you can take the work with you when you go. It isn't really Jimbo's either. Really the only thing you can't take is the server space... --TeaDrinker 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- And that is, in a nutshell, the part of Wikipedia I can't stand. It's so true, though. So why don't I leave? Because it isn't Jimbo's encyclopedia. It's our encyclopedia. He may have created it and he may own the hardware, but people like you and me wrote the articles and in the end that's what Wikipedia is: the little people. Orange Rocks
- But all of us wikipedians agreed to use it under the conditions it was provided. Jimbo is arbitor of all, has his shiny hat, and if we don't like it, we don't use his servers. --TeaDrinker 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been blocked and such rudeness makes me unlikely to continue conversations.
Orange Rocks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is not a "vandalous account". Look through the contributions and you'll see absolutely no vandalism
Decline reason:
We don't negotiate with terrorists ;) --Shell babelfish 10:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.