— Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.93.21 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Additional discussion moved in from User:ThrobbingMonsterCock:
I am banned user formerly known as User:Throbbing_Monster_Cock. I have never accessed Wikipedia as User:TMC and it is a misrepresentation to have my user page located there. I am therefore deleting that content.
TMC: I dug out your original homepage and found your pessimistic views on wikipedia interesting. First, I'd like to opine that "utility" is a subjective term - I consider writing to have utility if it entertains me. I found the current (as of today) entry of HMS Lightning to be of extreme utility :)
Also, what do you mean by "useful point of view"? I'm wondering if you mean to disagree with the view that wikipedia articles should have "neautral point of view", and if so, why? -- User:Micksa
As User:Isis, the primary instigator behind my original banning, has revealed her true nature and left Wikipedia in a huff, I assume that I am again welcome to contribute to the development of this encylopedia.
- What happened to Isis? Enquiring minds want to know! -- NetEsq 04:47 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Nevermind. I figured it out for myself: Isis decided that User:Tarquin had defamed her (i.e., Isis) and threatened to sue Tarquin because Tarquin claimed that Isis was mistaken about copyright law in re photographs. And all of this ugliness could have been avoided if Jimbo had simply left the username User:Throbbing_Monster_Cock as an ugly gargoyle on the roof of the Wikipedia church to ward off the evil spirits. -- NetEsq 05:24 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
What an objective metaphor ;) -- Micksa
Finally, as food for thought, I would like to point out that retroactively granting credit for my edits to the non-existent User:TMC violates both the letter and the spirit of the GFDL. I don't expect this observation to change the behavior of the parties involved, but hopefully who think seriously about the GFDL will appreciate the point made.
- Mmmm, good and interesting point, now fuck off.
Your assumption is sadly mistaken.
Sorry bub, this user name is still banned. You're welcome to contribute anonymously, under your real name, or under a pseudonym that isn't selected specifically for the purpose of rocking the boat. Rock the boat with your wonderful content instead! --Brion 00:31 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
TMC arrives, Isis goes, TMC banned, Isis comes back, Isis banned, TMC comes back. I've sussed it, they are one in the same!!
The reason your details were changed was because it is against Wiki rules to use usernics that may cause offence, disturbance or whatever to other users, visitors to the site, etc. That might seem an over-reaction but as I found it is a crucial necessity. Recently, I was in negotiations with a photo library who were about to supply Wiki with access to its extensive photo library. I told them all about Wiki. They were impressed but decided to check the serious endeavour that is Wikipedia before finally handing over the photos. They logged on, to be greeted with idiots calling themselves 'ThrobbingMonsterCock', 'CrucifiedChrist', etc and immediately decided that Wiki obviously wasn't such a serious endeavour after all if its contributors consisted of assholes using childish, immature names like that. So thanks to you, Wiki lost access to hundreds of historic photos of world leaders of the latter half of the twentieth century. The bottom line is, you may see using childish names like 'ThrobbingMonsterCock' as just a funny game, but if it (as it has done in more than just that case) damages Wikipedia, then you are doing more damage than the worst vandal and no amount of good articles by you balances out the damage done by pointlessly causing offence and making Wikipedia look like a bunch of immature kids playing with names. If you want to use stupid childish names, do it some where else.
By the way Isis was not the person behind your banning. It was widely discussed by many members who took the view that your nickname (and those of a small number of others) was undoing the work of the vast majority who are striving to make Wikipedia a serious and respected sourcebook, not a glorified playpen for immature name games. If you want to contribute, do so by respecting others and the Wikipedia project. If all you are interested in is childish name games, find somewhere else to play.
Wiki has a policy of changing offensive usernames and will continue to exercise it. That's why you were changed to TMC and why if you try to use ThrobbingMemberCock or any other such name, it will be changed, again and again and again JTD 05:18 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Don't try to blame Throbbing Monster Cock for ruining your chances of getting a would-be contributor to donate photos; the Throbbing One was long gone by that point. And what makes you think that "Crucified Christ" was playing a funny game? I reviewed his edits, and he or she was most certainly not attempting blasphemy. Rather, he or she apparently chose that username as a statement of his or her pro-Christian beliefs. Do you have any idea how foolish that makes you and your confederates look for jumping to unwarranted conclusions? Or how many would-be contributors might be scared off by the spectre of Wikipedia's Name Police? -- NetEsq 05:31 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
JTD you are a maroon writing comments like you do here, When your understanding of Wikipedian Ethos is so limited.... there are tons of your meally mouthed posts that show your ignorance and stupidity. I know that you have the capacity to write excellent articles; however, you do not show the subtlty of mind nessessary to do justice to complex topics. My statement is fully supported in the histories of the wikipedia. Let's take a look with the community if you dare come into the light. SLAP! with white glove.
You try talking to a senior person in a company whose reaction on seeing ThrobbingMonsterCock (and yes he was there) was to say, and I quote,
- 'for fuck sake, you said we'd be supplying our photographs to a credible organisation. How can you seriously expect my company to sign over photographs to your organisation when you contributors called CrucifiedChrist, Throbbingcock and the like. For fuck sake, my MD would go apeshit."
It sounds like this "senior person" has quite a potty mouth and (like you) has grossly mischaracterized the issues at hand. -- NetEsq 07:44 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
- You stupid, sad bastard.
- What a stunning response! Clearly, you are well versed in the art of reasoned debate! -- NetEsq 17:22 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
Or a head of state's office who were about to supply pictures until they saw five names and rang back to say that
- 'there is no way we could give pictures to any encyclopedia with contributors like that. If the newspapers found out we'd given pictures to an organisation with those types of contributors, my president would be slated and made to look an asshole. I cannot possibly authorise use of our pictures in that context. Sorry I'd love to, but I cannot. We'd be interpreted as approving of such people.'
Maybe you see Wiki as some sort of game where you can play at being an immature 11 year old, but the rest of us don't. It isn't about 'name police', it is about having the basic cop-on to respect your fellow contributors, users of wikipedia and others. And if you are so childish that you are more concerned with mythical name police than doing your job here, that's merely a reflection on you. I for one don't give a tuppenny damn if someone calls themselves CrucifiedChrist, AllahIsGay, VaginalLubricator or whatever else. But I do care if their childishness damages Wikipedia. And we do have to have restrictions because I for one don't fancy people joining up and calling themselves KillFags, HitlerIsMyHero, ChildRapist, GasJews or ShootNiggers. People should be able to work on Wikipedia or consult Wikipedia without having their sexual orientation, their race, their beliefs or whatever ridiculed by some childish idiot who is more concerned with giving people the two fingers than doing proper work on Wikipedia. It isn't about name police, it is about common courtesy and respect, something you obviously don't grasp. JTD 06:24 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Rants like the one set forth above speak volumes about people who pretend to take the high road and pass judgment on the motives of others. To wit, the usernames "Throbbing Monster Cock" and "CrucifiedChrist" fall far short of any reasonable standard for proscribing offensive usernames, and both users made valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, we have JTD ignoring the valuable contributions of these Wikipedians and equating these usernames with all sorts of crudity and hate speech. Can you say "witch hunt"?
- Can you say "Libertarian wanker moron?"
- Can you say "troll"? -- NetEsq 17:22 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Unh, unh, they're coming through the walls! Get a life, sad person. My friend. <LOL>
- This from an anonymous coward? Sorry, but "I'm rubber and you're glue, . . ." -- NetEsq 17:22 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
By the way, Two16, I know most of us see you as a semi-literate joke, but if you are going to try to be insulting, could you just once LEARN TO SPELL. Maroon is a colour!!! Also learn some of the basic rules of grammar. Oh and, if you are from Canada, try to learn how to spell Canadian - it never was, and never will be Canadain. Now take some of your tablets and go away.
- "Maroon" is a Bugs Bunny reference, whch has long ago been accepted as a word for said definition. Get with the times, fucktard. Flip Merav 21 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Learn to apply logic. I'm tired of appling it with a trowel. READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE: It looks like you can't read when you respond and at least I can use a spell check in the morning. Won' t you cheecks be a colour when you learn Bugs Bunny's favorite insult: What a maroon! Feeling the blood flow yet MAROON 'cause there more coming you ignorant prejudiced prat:
- Maroon is both a gentler and more complex an adjective than moron. The uniforms of any team named Maroon are a beautiful scarlet. Scarlet gets deeper, darker, richer, brighter when wet with sweat or water. This makes Maroons excellent subjects for sports photography. It's downside is most often seen during High School basketball season: any player so incautious as to not shake after his pre-game relief will find his urine stain visible in the highest bleacher. If you are a starting player there is no place to hide.
- Um, what the fuck? Flip Merav 21 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Compare with: Hanlon's Razor
- Get back on all fours and think about your life. My comments are widely posted about user names and their suitablity. You don't seem to understand what is happening to your reputation with each new moronic statement you write. Sit JTD Sit. User:Two16
- Very bad, sad edit, please burn your keyboard now.Add
And from User talk:ThrobbingMonsterCock:
Your user page is in error. You are still banned until User:Jimbo Wales says otherwise, which will only happen if the mailing list et al support it. Tokerboy
And, never under this name. Ortolan88 00:26 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
Don't trouble to think that there are just one or two weirdos who take this view: I am about to suggest on the list that you be completely deleted (if others have not already done so) - and I will be very surprised if that does not take place. Perhaps others will take a different view, but I am of the opinion that a user with so little consideration for other readers cannot be presumed to have anything useful to contribute, and should not be allowed back under any name or any circumstances. Tannin 00:36 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
TMC, you're annoying everyone here with your silly username. You are not welcome unless you accept the change. The respective Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No offensive usernames has been defined by many Wikipedians, not just Isis. Get used to it or get lost.--Eloquence 00:59 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
Are usernames a good idea in the first place?
editIt seems to me, as an anonymous coward outsider, that this entire discussion is pointless. The entire username system, especially in this setting, only leads to ad-hominem attacks: you correlate changes written by the same person and your feelings about one change affect your views of other changes, etc. A user's choice of username, whether patently offensive or not, may again influence our views of contributed information. Already in this discussion, comments have been made to the effect of "your grammar is in a sad state, so I see no reason to take anything you say into consideration." In the end, who said something matters more than what or why, which for an encyclopedia, is quite sad. There are arguments for authority: that anything said without proof of knowledge is useless, or that our collective inability to audit the source of some text renders the text immediately suspect and even useless. The fact is, all text should be suspect, and everyone gets their say one way or another. Users banned by username will select a different name. We should rename 'anonymous coward' to 'politely anonymous contributor' and accept the fact that sometimes, being anonymous is preferable both for self and for the community. Naturally, I expect plenty of people to disagree with this opinion simply because it comes anonymously; I would also expect it to be rejected as hypocritical were it to come from someone using an actual login. Is anybody required to use logins to make changes? Is the availability of usernames more dangerous than other perils? A cost analysis seems in order. Politely anonymous contributor, Oct. 8 2003
I agree...partially. I am opposed to names that are self-glorifying adjectives, like someone with a username of "cool" "beauty" "oblosence" or "dogma" or whatever, so my idea is to use a rather abstract name whose only association will be with oneself, not an idea that may intimidate or anger users when applied as an identity.--Ikiroid 23:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi TMC, you have loaded up Image:Gay-flag-6.png. It does not have any license. Please write a license there until the 20th November, because after that date I am going to put the Image Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion. A User from our German WP has loaded up the Image at the German WP, so I want to write the license there. --Leon¿! | GerWP GerWP ¿! ]] 15:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Man, you ruined the academic debate! You suck! Flip Merav 21 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Germany_flag_1945.png
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Germany_flag_1945.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
