Roger 3 Roger

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisci velit

@Imzadi1979, Pyrope, Roger 8 Roger, Jdcooper, TheAlienMan2002, Cullen328, Phil Bridger, Fredddie, TheTechie, Amortias, and Bretonbanquet: well, you all know who this is by now, don't you? I don't need to provide any hints at this stage, do I?

And I don't need to tell you that I'm still angry with all of you, do I?

I'm still angry with you, Imzadi1979, for being a shameless, stuck, patronizing cough bead (there are reasons why I have rearranged the letters there) on Vehicle registration plates of Michigan and on your talk page ten years ago, and for still being a stuck, patronizing cough bead today. I no longer care about pushing you away from that particular article, about making you remove it from your precious watchlist – and I no longer care, either, if I killed whatever interest you had in license plates, because at the end of the day that is your problem, not mine. And I'm sorry, but your comparison of text on license plates to material out of books is still not a good one. And as someone who writes books yourself, you ought to know very well that material out of books is not always in quotation marks when quoted – it can be in bold text or italics too. Having this stuff in quotation marks is your preference, nothing more, nothing less – and much as you want everyone to agree with you on this, you can not. There are people out there who have different preferences to yours – and if you don't like what they prefer, well that's just tough shit! How does that Rolling Stones song go again? (Needless to say, I don't care about your musical tastes, either.)

Also, "I never said you were a selfish troublemaker, but I did say that if it was your intention to drive users away from that article, you had succeeded." So, according to you, intentionally driving other people away from an article does not mean that you're a selfish troublemaker? IF-YOU-SEE-KAY THE IF-YOU-SEE-KAYING IF-YOU-SEE-KAY OFF!!! (There are reasons why I have styled it like that, too – and yes, I have been inspired by Britney Spears.) That is just as stupid as comparing text on license plates to material out of books, as far as I'm concerned. How the if-you-see-kay can you not be a selfish troublemaker if you are intentionally, deliberately, wantonly driving other people away from even just one article? You might as well think that burgling a house, and just one house, does not mean that you're a criminal – even though what you are doing is deliberate and against the law, and you will get a criminal record if you are caught.

Seriously, Imzadi1979, you need to get an if-you-see-kaying grip. Or is this no longer possible for you now? Have nineteen years of editing Wikipedia, and remaining that loyal to the damn thing, made you so much of a shameless, stuck, patronizing cough bead that it impossible for you to change back? Were even nine years – from when you created your account in October 2005 to when you first encountered me in October 2014 – enough for this to happen? Have you stepped that far into that proverbial river of blood, just like Macbeth (needless to say, I don't care if you like Shakespeare or not), and had you already stepped that far in in October 2014? Is your head that far inside your bowels, and was it already that far inside in October 2014?

I would be very strongly led to believe that you are going to remain that loyal and that dedicated to Wikipedia no matter what. Other people may intentionally drive you away from articles, and you may be angry and humiliated enough to remove these articles from your precious watchlist too, with no intention of editing these articles ever again – but the only two ways in which you will stop editing the godforsaken site altogether is if it dies, or you die. (You're 45, so you're fast approaching middle age – and it's possible that you will not live another 45 years, either. Just thought I'd tell you that.) In the meantime, you will continue to spend more time on it than you really need to, and hence you will continue to be a shameless, stuck, patronizing cough bead. And you will go on willingly attending these so-called Wikipedia "conferences", and meeting Jimmy Wales in person and thinking he's one of the greatest people in the world (when as far as I'm concerned, he is not much nicer a person than the three unquestionable bastards that are Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, even though he is obviously not as wealthy as they are).

I wish I could feel sorry for you, Imzadi1979. I really wish I could. But I can't, and I won't – because you are just too big a shameless, stuck, patronizing cough bead for me to be able to feel sorry for you.

(At this point, may I sarcastically thank you, Drmies, for bringing up the word whose letters I have rearranged into "cough bead".)

I'm still angry with you, Pyrope, for being a shameless, stuck, patronizing cough bead on BRDC International Trophy eight years ago, and for still being a stuck, patronizing cough bead today. You know what I particularly despise about you? You shamelessly saying "go do this", "go do that". As far as I'm concerned, that is an if-you-see-kaying abhorrent patronizing attitude. If you just said "do this", "do that", without the "go", it wouldn't be so abhorrent and so patronizing. But you don't give an if-you-see-kay about that, do you? Well, you can go stick it all where the sun don't shine. (Yeah, right back atcha.)

I'm still angry with you, Roger 8 Roger, for being a shameless, stuck, patronizing cough bead on Erith six years ago, and for still being a stuck, patronizing cough bead today. You thank me for my edits, and then, immediately, you call these edits distressing?! How the if-you-see-kaying if-you-see-kay can you thank someone for making edits you do not agree with?!?! You might as well thank someone for killing your dog or cat, before telling them how distressing it is that they killed your dog or cat. (And that, as far as I'm concerned, is a better comparison than that of text on license plates to material out of books.) I'm sure you're well aware of how many times I've jerked around with your username at this stage – and I'm sure, too, you are aware that each and every time I've jerked around with your username has been out of my ongoing anger with you. Not to mention that yours is a very, very easy username to be jerked around with by angry people like myself, too. (Let me point out why I have jerked around with your username here, as Roger 3 Roger: you get so "distressed" when you go on an article about a place in Greater London and it does not specifically say that that place is "in the historic county of Kent/Surrey/Essex/Middlesex", yet you seem to turn a blind eye to articles about places in Greater Manchester, many of which say "historically part of Lancashire/Cheshire". Wouldn't that make you "distressed", too? At the same time, you don't seem to be particularly bothered about complete consistency across all these articles – so as far as I'm concerned, Roger 8 Roger, you are a hypocrite.) If you can't prise yourself away from Wikipedia (and God knows how much it will take for you – and, indeed, everyone else I'm pinging here – to be prised away from the damn thing), then I really would consider getting your username changed, since I've jerked around with it so much that it must be tainted now. You wouldn't want to keep on editing Wikipedia with a tainted, much-jerked-around username, would you? So get it changed; you might be surprised at how easy this is. I'm assuming Roger is your first name in real life; why not use your surname as well? Or maybe call yourself "Roger the Ruthless" or something else alliterative, or "Roger of [whatever town or village you're from]". Anything that has much less potential to be jerked around with by angry people than "Roger 8 Roger"...

I'm still angry with you, Jdcooper, for taking Roger 8 Roger's side six years ago, and for still taking his side today. How would you like it if he thanked you for an edit you made, only for him to then, immediately, call that edit "distressing"? You'd incredulously wonder "well, why is he thanking me for this edit, then, if he doesn't like this edit at all?" Wouldn't you? And you'd get angry to some extent as well, wouldn't you?

I'm still angry with you, TheAlienMan2002, for being a shameless, stuck, patronizing (and rather robotic) cough bead on Yardley Hastings last year. You remained a shameless, stuck, patronizing (and rather robotic) cough bead right up until you were indefinitely blocked – and you remained a shameless, stuck, patronizing (and rather robotic) cough bead after you were indefinitely blocked, as well, as demonstrated by your pathetic attempts to get yourself unblocked. I very, very, very strongly suggest you accept your indefinite block (just as I have accepted mine – and gladly, too, because I genuinely wanted to be indefinitely blocked), you accept that this block will never be lifted, and you do not make any more attempts to have this block lifted.

I'm still angry with you, Cullen328, and with you, Phil Bridger, for taking TheAlienMan2002's side last year. Did either of you realise that you were taking the side of a shameless, stuck, patronizing (and rather robotic) cough bead, who was also grossly inexperienced (he made barely four hundred edits, for heaven's sake – compare to Drmies, who has made a thousand times as many edits), did not bother to check his spelling or his grammar in his edit summaries, and was a sockpuppet too? I very strongly suggest that neither of you take the side of such a bad, unreliable and untrustworthy editor again, no matter what. (And this ought to clear things up for you once and for all, Mr Bridger, since you have been openly wondering why I have pinged you so much.)

As for the rest of you, I'm angry with all of you for being shameless, stuck, patronizing cough beads anyway.

Each and every one of you have played your part in me turning completely against Wikipedia, and indeed against everything to do with Wikipedia. Against its model, against its "aims", against a very great deal of its "community" (and against the whole idea of a Wikipedia "community", too – I now maintain that Wikipedia is just another social media site, and anyone who disagrees that social media sites can be toxic is in seriously dire need of a brain surgery), against the Wikimedia Foundation, against all the other "projects" of the Wikimedia Foundation (I never particularly liked Wikimedia Commons anyway – not when I could never, ever get my head round the rules regarding what images can and can not be uploaded, and I still can't), and of course, against Jimmy Wales.

But none of you care, do you? And I can't see any of you caring any time soon, either, because you are just too loyal and just too dedicated to Wikipedia and everything to do with it. You probably won't even care if you turn almost everyone else against the godforsaken thing – leaving just yourselves, and everyone else in your cabal (and, obviously, "Jimbo") – because you have all stepped that far into that proverbial river of blood like Macbeth, and you have all stuck your heads that far inside your bowels.

All of you are shameless, stuck, patronizing cough beads.

Yes, bros (sarcastic thanks again, Drmies, for bringing up the singular form of that word), all of you are shameless, stuck, patronizing cough beads.

One day, perhaps, I will stop being angry with all of you. Exactly how that will come about, I have no way of knowing. In the meantime, I will continue to be a proud anti-Wikipedian and a selfish troublemaker – and I will take pride in being a cough bead myself, too, albeit a rather different kind of cough bead.

I suppose after all this, you're going to award each other those cheap star graphics again, with stupid messages attached like "Thanks for continuing to work on our beautiful project"? Even though those cheap star graphics are just that, cheap star graphics – they are not tangible, truly meaningful awards like Olympic gold medals, Super Bowl rings, or even the trophies you might have won for doing well in school and college?

Finally, Wikipedia is supposed to be "the sum of all knowledge"? Pah! More like the sum of all opinions to me now. And you can blame my aunt for coining that term.

You-know-who, posting as Roger 3 Roger (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)