User:Jarcanist/PA

shift @people while @people;

How have you been doing on....
How have you been doing on taking care of the vandals. I have cought a few here and there, i need to know the names so my friend User:Shanes can look at the problem and take care of it. Thank You. --Gators222 00:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

I don't "go after" vandals. It's a complete waste of time. If I see something happening to a page that I watch which needs help, I help. I don't go looking for fights. I'm a big boy now.  aa v ^ 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mr. Big Boy..
You are using little kid words that my 9 year old sister says on runescape "wtf". You know good and well what i am talking about. You say stuff you cant back up like you want to help and i tell you what to do and you be a sarcastic butt. Then you say your a big boy now, well you dont act like it. You act like me without my Adderall for my ADHD on a bad day.--Gators222 01:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Its believeable
First of all, you cant talk about attacks and bad language because im no dummy, lol wtf. WTF means what the f. Second of all, i belive its possible for you to like pantera when you were young. You say your about 30 and they came out in 1981 even though they have had problems like their lead singer shot before in a concert. Third, i like my ADHD. Its what makes me, the hyper, funny in a random way kinda guy. I am just about to grow outta it. Last, I am not lost, if you read my user page, it says that i have used it Quote"6th through 8th" which puts me doing another term paper at 9th grade. Im a internet smart guy, im not like my dad who is clueless about everything except the Braves home page. I have been acitve in so many things like MySpace, Runescape, Inklink, Picture link, and many more MMPRPG(Massive Multi Player Role Player Game), so I get games and stuff like that quick. I dont stay inside all the time on Wikipedia, i watch College football and stuff, so I acutally get off this.--Gators222 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pantera logo.jpg

Image:Gator head logo.jpg

Figures, you have nothing to say now.

Lol, well, somebody can be...
Sarcastic. I, though, go after vandals. When you first contacted me, you asked to help, Mr. "Big Boy". Report them to admin. dudes, not start a fight. --Gators222 23:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Ya, now ya cant talk can ya. Dont say stuff you cant back up.--Gators222 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandals: there were vandalizers doing stuff on my pages, to help, just make sure that they dont vandalize. --Gator Fan 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222--Gator Fan 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me when u find any vandalizers on the page, i will set a warning on them. Thank You, --Gator Fan 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

Oh so now...
Your calling me a noob as in a insult, as in a PERSONAL ATTACK possibly. Oh, and another thing, i dont care about this MSK or wut eva, if you cant laugh at your self then you dont deserve to say anything at all, she said something about hate! I dont "hate", i dislike.

I could release so many bad insults that you would shut up cuz you wouldnt have a good of comeback, You cant call noob when your picture says it all. Put it this way....how to say it....mabey....IM IN SHAPE!

Ya you removed it cuz im right, ur just outta breath in your pic
So let me end this dude,Alex, the guy who was wearing pink shorts in a pic, you cant talk worth a crap, so shut up, wikipedia isnt all my life, as it seems to be with you.--Gators222 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead..
Tell him your side of the story, if your a big boy then we can stop the arguing and go seperate ways, i already have.--Gators222 00:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

*Snicker*
Your not even acting like a Italic textman.--Gators222 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Avriette
I have seen Gators222 and your arguement. I agree that he was Personally attacking you in a way and i think you should either kiss and make up (say sorry and continue to contact in a non sarcastic way) or go seperate ways, seeing that he was wrong, you did say the noob beer bottle crap thing and start the sarcatic arguement. When it all comes down to it, we all have to admit it, we all have some wrong. I'm sure he feels that way too and probably dosent want to argue forever.--Auburnfan4 00:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya know what
Moe's advice is right, im sorry. Its the best thing to do. Im sorry for draging him into this, that i said sarcastic remarks, and that we personally attacked eachother. THE END.--Gators222 01:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Let him be that way Moe
He isnt worth insulting, i said sorry and saying sorry is the first step a MAN takes. --Gators222 01:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You should accept it
I personally think its rude and unprofessional to deny someone's apology. He is doing the right thing and i hope you will too.--Auburnfan4 01:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He wasnt bein abusive!
He was saying SORRY! Man yall both need 2 chill! I gave him an award for sayin the magic word. I just hate to see people fight.....--Auburnfan4 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

fUCK YOU U FAT BPEICE A JUNK FUCK YOUR MAMA SHE IS A HO YOUR FAT SHIT!

Hello, i have a question
I am new here and noticed an arguement. I have had a previous account here about 2 years ago. I have been back on and noticed that you were in an arguement and would like to know if you could tell me what happened.--I ignore you 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, uh, pick an argument. I could name several, but if you have one in mind, I'll be happy to fill you in on details as is appropriate. ... aa:talk 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess as you all requested
Its me, Gators222, as yall requested me to tell you when i made a new account to be monitered, check this out on the talk "Blocked" on my old page.--Slipknot222 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

leet language
Your move was not in good faith.... stop trying to push on your POV by making that change... disambiguation is not needed, and at best, the article would go at (slang) or (cipher). -- Netoholic @ 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was. I moved it because I felt that two dab links at the top was pushing it. Both were valid dabs, and making a dab page is standard practice. I have cited two sources (one from a doctorate of language) classifying Leet as a language. Per your request, I might add. Let's take up this discussion on the talk page. ... aa:talk 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither of those links would appear as "Leet", since neither use that as the most common English name for that subject. See Disambiguation.
 * I can understand that this may have been an emotional reaction to my criticism of your edit. You have a chance now to just say sorry, and let the page go back where it was... no harm, no foul. -- Netoholic @ 23:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a threat, but a request. You're obsessing on this subject, and making some bad, emotional, judgements.  You have a chance to rise above that and correct those bad decisions... before more people look at this and start thinking you're not playing nice.  -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(re-added after reverting):

leet language
Your move was not in good faith.... stop trying to push on your POV by making that change... disambiguation is not needed, and at best, the article would go at (slang) or (cipher). -- Netoholic @ 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was. I moved it because I felt that two dab links at the top was pushing it. Both were valid dabs, and making a dab page is standard practice. I have cited two sources (one from a doctorate of language) classifying Leet as a language. Per your request, I might add. Let's take up this discussion on the talk page. ... aa:talk 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither of those links would appear as "Leet", since neither use that as the most common English name for that subject. See Disambiguation.
 * I can understand that this may have been an emotional reaction to my criticism of your edit. You have a chance now to just say sorry, and let the page go back where it was... no harm, no foul. -- Netoholic @ 23:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a threat, but a request. You're obsessing on this subject, and making some bad, emotional, judgements.  You have a chance to rise above that and correct those bad decisions... before more people look at this and start thinking you're not playing nice.  -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The vote section is per Requested moves (where I've listed this). Stop fucking with it. -- Netoholic @ 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sub-conversation with Majorly

 * You obviously don't understand what administrators are for. -- Majorly 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll assume you two aren't here to browbeat me over disagreeing with your own points of view. However, I'd also ask you to refrain from further bothering me about our differing views. I've harmed no-one, rather just mentioned my opinion on something in a discussion. ... aa:talk 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no points of view about it: blocking, deleting, and protecting have nothing to do with writing articles. Fact. You're entitled to your view, of course, but consider not imposing this view on people who wish to become administrators, as you may have noticed this site is open to almost everyone and requires helpful users to keep control over it. These users may not write articles, but we need as many as we can, and frankly your opposes on recent RfAs are both useless (as in the RfAs pass) and disputed (check the comments under them). Your comment about me here, in particular "useless twits" linking to the counter vandalism unit is both rude and incorrect. -- Majorly 00:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're here to argue with me about my point of view? ... aa:talk 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying your point of view is wrong, but please don't impose it on RfA candidates who would make good administrators. You might notice you are in the minority most of the time when you vote (and the RfA passes), and your views aren't generally agreed with. Also, I, and I'm sure many other good vandal fighters do not like being called useless twits, which I'm sure counts as a personal attack. -- Majorly 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Typically "personal" refers to a single person. To make a comment about a group of people would by definition not be personal. However, I think this charming discussion of semantics is unrelated to the point brought up by Biruitorul, and further is unproductive. You are beating a horse which has been dead for over a month. There are many paths for dispute resolution available to you, and I have said quite clearly to you that we disagree on this subject, most likely beyond hope of reconciliation. However, this is the beauty of the project: we can both be adults and agree to disagree. In fact, we can not only agree to disagree, but we can work side by side in our disagreeing points of view, and contribute to the project. Which is precisely the crux of my feeling on this subject, that we should be doing just that: contributing. Bickering like this is silly, and I am frankly tempted to move the bickering from this discussion (with Biruitorul) to the sub-page I use for bickering. It's sad to me that you have continued to bring this matter up. I can see no other objective than to create conflict or to stir the pot. What else can I do for you? ... aa:talk 00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you ask: 1) Read up on what administrators do, who they are and why Wikipedia needs them. 2) Refrain from attack, personally or otherwise, groups or individuals who you do not agree with/like/get on with. 3) Next time you think of voting in an RfA, consider how well the user will be as an administrator. Not an article creator/editor. An administrator, one who blocks disruptive users, deletes unhelpful pages and media, and locks pages to keep the articles at their best. Just think: imagine if one day all the administrators had the day off. I'll leave you to work out the chaos that would occur. I'll finish now as you don't seem to be taking me at all seriously. Thank you for your time. -- Majorly 00:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You've got a lot of nerve. I have told you that we disagree, not that I am ignorant. During the years I have been here, I have focused almost entirely upon contributing factual data. I have only once been active in the politics of the foundation, and deeply regret that period. Your insinuations sicken me. This line of "questioning" is the apogee &mdash; opposite mine &mdash; of discourse in the project. You insist I must not only be a part of this conflict you and your ilk seek out, but I must agree with you as well. Not agreeing is a "personal attack" or condoning "chaos." How arrogant to think that you are responsible for staving off the certain death-by-entropy the project faces! How arrogant to assume death is a certainty! It is precisely people like you which deter me from voicing my opinion in discussions in this open forum we have here. Consider that, son, whilst I consider what the project might be like if you and your kind "had the day off." I am furious at having to defend this point of view to the current juncture. It is my sincere hope that you will not continue to harass me, and that I will be able to simply place your comments elsewhere . I have no wish to see my presence here further sullied. ... aa:talk 01:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Just because you regret being part of the politics does not mean others do. You are the arrogant one here, as this website needs administrators. In my RfA for example, you said "wikipedia is not a "fight" against vandals. When you wish to contribute to the project by adding articles and proofreading, consider re-applying" you obviously did not bother to do much research into your comment, as I had written several articles at the time, and was and still am a member of several wikiprojects, which I regularly edit the articles in. If you don't like the politics why vote in RfAs? Stick with your writing if you enjoy that more, and stop bothering users by opposing their RfAs for the wrong reasons. 1FA was something I did not, and still do not have but at least it's obvious what the criteria is. Your crieria, which wants administrators who solely write articles, is outdated and incorrect: as I'm sure I said before administrator tools are not for writing articles. Is over 1.5 million articles not good enough for you? I have tried to write articles here, and have succeeded, but they are not the best and I haven't written very many. How many articles do you like users to have written? Do you want them to have ever reverted vandalism, or is once too much and counted as "fighting"? Would you rather vandal editors stayed unblocked and ruined your articles? I wonder what all the vandal fighters that are on here would think... sorry, I meant "useless twits"...

I also do not like being referred to as "you and your kind"; what do you imply by this, the good users and editors who help keep this encyclopedia looking its best and free of profanity? I am also not your "son" and do not wish to be referred to as such. If you choose to reply to this, please stay civil as you failed that in your past comments. -- Majorly 14:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote in RFAs in the hopes of bringing more useful editors into the pool. It is offensive to say that my dissent is "bothering" anyone who has voluntarily gone through the RFA process. You deliberately exaggerate my conditions. I don't want admins who "solely" (your word, not mine) write articles. I want administrators to not be the type who is looking for a fight. By "your kind", I meant other users such as yourself. Those who wrap themselves in the mantle of status quo and arm themselves with threats ("please be civil" is always delivered with an implicit threat; in this case you don't need to remind me of it, as you are assuming good faith, and you know I am aware of policies, having been here substantially longer than yourself). The articles are not my articles. Lastly, "son" is not a pejorative, it is a diminutive. If you take offense to the diminutive, I won't continue to use it with you. But, it is appropriate in this case (diminutive (n). A word form expressing smallness or youth)
 * You came here to argue with me about my differing opinion. The fact that you're bringing up your own RFA in discussion about somebody else's (who has read what I said, and while not agreeing, at least understands) confirms this. I find this to be belligerent and harassing. I have stated many times thus far that I do not agree with you, nor am I likely to. I have suggested that we should agree to disagree. I don't wish to argue with you, as it isn't worth either of our time. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by bringing up interactions that took place months ago. And, let me repeat: I feel that you are threatening me, and I most certainly feel that you are harassing me. So perhaps you should find somebody else to bully. ... aa:talk 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It must be bothering them, taking a look at your talk page and comments in RfAs. I don't think any administrators look for fights, but they are an unfortunate thing on this wiki and they do happen, and admins are there to help deal with them – it is therefore necessary to have some experience of conflict before becoming an admin. I did not know you were aware of policies, but assumed it, and I couldn't care less if you'd been here 3 years or 3 days. Also, my age has nothing to do with this either – you have no idea how old I am, whatever my user page might say, so don't bring it into this.
 * My RfA was less than a month ago, not months, and gave it as an example of yet another one of your opposes. I do feel it is silly to argue but I am certainly not threatening or harassing you, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. Perhaps I won't find "somebody else to bully" as I am not currently bullying anyone, and I don't look for fights. On that note, you are pretty stuck with your ideas, and it is the unfortunate thing I'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll say no more about it here. -- Majorly 15:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)