Disliked intensely by 4 out of 5 sock puppets worldwide.Edit
Some editors use their user pages to tell you up front that they're not looking for a fight (which always means they are) or that their decisions and actions are based on a strict interpretation of Wiki Foundation policy (which always means they're arrogant and enjoy messing with people).
- If you edit something, make it better.
- If you apply a rule, have a reason for doing so.
- If you have a bias, admit it.
- If all you do is run around and apply policies, have some editing work in your portfolio to prove you're not just an overzealous self-appointed hallway monitor.
- If you cried like a baby because your vanity article/promotional vehicle/search engine bait was nominated for deletion, fix the article before striking back with namecalling.
- If you cannot adhere to these rules, I will be perfectly willing to incur the block penalty to point out that you are not being civil and what my opinion of you might be. If you are the lovely and talented Amy Hartzler or Melinda Hill or one of their fans or acolytes, you can contact my Complaints Department as you see fit.
Wikipedia was and should be monitored by its creative community. If you are not actively creating, just passing judgment on others, you have no business editing or deleting and should go get a hobby. The advent of the "oversighter" has
nearly killed the creative and collaborative aspect of Wikipedia and replaced it with a pretentious and overregulated mess.
That is all.
|Research Participation Barnstar|
|For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)|