User talk:FerrerFour
August 2012
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL. Well, I was about to post this to the ANI thread below in response to Bbb23's 3RR analogy. It seems a shame to let it go to waste, particularly as it seems it was very prescient.
<quote>
- Here's an even better analogy. User A makes 4 reverts in 24 hours, without a valid reason. User B tells him that was a violation of 3RR, and not to do it again. User A tells him it wasn't, and gives a whole list of gobbledygook links as some kind of justification for the reverts, which to any normal user looks like nonsense, borne out of fundemental failure to understand both 3RR and all the other links they threw out there. User A then proceeds to make 4 further reverts. User B tells him he's incompetent, and advises them to buck their ideas up. User A gets upset and comes to ANI. User B has done nothing wrong, so stands by his actions. Users C/D/E/F/G/H form a kangaroo court, and while expressing no concern whatsoever about user A, proceed to focus solely on User B, full of their own self importance at their chance to fuck over someone with heavy doses of selective hearing/reading. Probable outcome: User B, a productive editor, decides that Wikipedia is a basket case with completely backwards priorities, and is lost to the project forever, either through force, or by his choice. User A continues to be an incompent editor, messes up a whole bunch more articles, and propogates his poor understanding of policy to even less experienced users by spreading it all over random talk pages. Long term, User A either finally learns the ropes, having no doubt destroyed an unknowable amount of content and confused an unknowable amount of inexperienced editors in the meantime, or they screw up and they get blocked after applying their incompetence to a disupte which involves some power user or other, and finally gets the block they deserve, still no doubt not having any idea what they've done wrong, because here's the kicker - they have been incompetent all along. FerrerFour (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
</quote>
With that, I'm out of here. You all have fun now editting articles while others who don't know a BLP from a loaf of bread get in your way, and when you highlight it, it's dismissed as nothing but a "content dispute". Good job everyone!
- Well done! Proves my point that the only thing you understand are your own views. Hopefully, you won't change your mind and come back.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC):::Snark is not a good response to incivility. Kind of like putting putting out a fire with gasoline. Nobody Ent 18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh noes, an insult on the internets! Get over yourself you moron. Being blocked doesn't affect me in the slightest, I do have a life. Encouraging users like S&P however just might backfire on whatever topics you like to edit here. I would quite like to see how you would deal with his various issues with not really understanding any policy at all, not BLP, not NPOV, not OR, not TPO, not fucking anything really, especially now he's learned the trick from misguided pompous arses like you that it's best not to even acknowledge such concerns when presented by others, if you can play the 'mommy mommy' card. Unless of course you're as incompetent as they evidently are, in which case, a 'content' dispute between the two of you would be a sight to behold surely. Like two baboons flinging shit at each other while ostensibly visiting a museum. FerrerFour (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- At the end of the day though, you deserve each other. If you don't see how the link I provided isn't a BLP violation in the slightest, and nearly 24 hours after I posted it you still wanted to call such evidence of basic incompetence as mere 'allegations', then I hope you both take each other down into the depths of merry hell in future, because S&P must be very emboldened now at seeing what they can acheive with very little knowledge at all, by simply crying infront of people like you. And as far as that sort of pathetic wikipolitics goes, that's at least one thing they do seem to have a learning capacity for. Just look at how many new words and phrases they've learned in that regard, just from that one ANI, which will no doubt come in handy the next time they fuck up and delete something for being a BLP violation when it isn't, or asking for signs of notability for in-article content, or any of the other stupid things he does, and repeats because he just won't be told, because he's an incompetent. I'm sure the project will flourish if it self-selects editors who only have that skill, while kicking out the ones who do know their arses from their elbows, and can actually write content without making a fucking balls up of it at step 1. FerrerFour (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I haven't reviewed the edit so you may be right on content. But like many societies Wikipedia has its own culture: it's not a black and white thing where either you're right and S & P is wrong, or vice versa. Regardless of whether S & P is correct, over aggressive behavior just isn't tolerated long term; even if it wasn't S & P today it would be some other editor next week, or next month. We accept and tolerate mistakes as long as there's good faith and indication of growth and learning; while editors are sometimes told to leave for incompetence, it's only after many, many chances. Likewise, if you decide you're willing to abide the general code of conduct after the block expires you'll be more than welcome to edit. Nobody Ent 18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- At the end of the day though, you deserve each other. If you don't see how the link I provided isn't a BLP violation in the slightest, and nearly 24 hours after I posted it you still wanted to call such evidence of basic incompetence as mere 'allegations', then I hope you both take each other down into the depths of merry hell in future, because S&P must be very emboldened now at seeing what they can acheive with very little knowledge at all, by simply crying infront of people like you. And as far as that sort of pathetic wikipolitics goes, that's at least one thing they do seem to have a learning capacity for. Just look at how many new words and phrases they've learned in that regard, just from that one ANI, which will no doubt come in handy the next time they fuck up and delete something for being a BLP violation when it isn't, or asking for signs of notability for in-article content, or any of the other stupid things he does, and repeats because he just won't be told, because he's an incompetent. I'm sure the project will flourish if it self-selects editors who only have that skill, while kicking out the ones who do know their arses from their elbows, and can actually write content without making a fucking balls up of it at step 1. FerrerFour (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I've extended your block to one week and revoked talk page access. It would be easier for others to review the evidence you present on other editors if you weren't compelled to be so disruptive in how you present evidence, and weren't so rude in how you conduct every single interaction you have. You need to either learn to get along, or find a new hobby. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)