User:Rogue 9/Sandbox

This is my sandbox. There are many like it, but this one is mine. Rogue 9 04:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)



Link storage
http://reason.com/barry.shtml

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1491516901670441597&q=japanese+canon+guitar

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2184649266159259417&q=gunship

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521044027821122670

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/RogueIce/SDNet/military.jpg

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17574734-23109,00.html

http://www.quotegarden.com/freedom.html

http://www.libriumarcana.com

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net

http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue

http://www.necrodragon.com

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/

http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html

http://www.zipperfish.net/rants/time-article.php

http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=040410

http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/neurotypicality.html

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-terrorists-and-leftists-have-in.html

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

http://empyreannight.proboards85.com/index.cgi

/ST

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=71d_1206643547

Response by Rogue 9
Kelly Martin is gravely mistaken in her assessment of her powers and the effects that her wielding of them in this instance wrought. I will address each part of this defense in order.


 * I do hold those whose purpose for being on Wikipedia is other than to write an encyclopedia with contempt. Such people do not belong here; they should be asked to leave, and if they do not leave they should be forced to leave.

This is authoritarian thinking. CalJW will probably come barging in and say that the preceding sentence is a personal attack, but it is not; it is a simple statement of fact. Who is Kelly Martin to unilaterally decide that any one of us should be forced to leave? None of us have that power by ourselves, and none of us should have it. It is my opinion that those who hold such attitudes should not be entrusted with any power whatsoever beyond those of a normal editor, lest they abuse it in pursuit of their personal goals and vision, but I do not say that my opinion should be the one enforced. I submit that Ms. Martin should not either.


 * Wikipedia is not a social experiment; it is an encyclopedia.

Quite true, but irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a social experiment, and it is an encyclopedia, but it is also a community, and if the community is not allowed to exist, then neither will the encyclopedia. And the community will not exist for very long if the members have no incentive to stay here. Many of us who contribute to articles would not be here if Wikipedia tolerated only the driest of academic discussion and concourse, and the encyclopedia would suffer for it.


 * I do not believe my actions will have a serious impact on that portion of our community that actually writes the encyclopedia; my actions did not target them.

Ah, and here is where Ms. Martin is most seriously wrong. Her actions did, in fact, target a large portion of the encyclopedia-writing community. You see, Wikipedians do not fall into two monolithic groups of those who write the encyclopedia and nothing else and those who express their personal opinions without touching articles. I challenge anyone to examine my edit record and question my commitment to writing and improving encyclopedia articles on several subjects, and yet one of the first templates deleted, User Capitalist, was made for a Wikipedian category that I founded, namely Capitalist Wikipedians. Her actions did indeed target writers of the encyclopedia, and a great many of us at that.


 * I will not apologize for my actions; they were motivated by my belief in what is best for Wikipedia.

And they may well have been; in fact I daresay that they were motivated by the best of intentions, but we all know what the road to Hell is paved with. Be that as it may, good intentions do not excuse bad actions, and the summary deletion of the work of scores of her fellow editors shows callous disregard for the community that builds, maintains, and sustains this encyclopedia. I will not presume to tell Ms. Martin that she should apologize, but I submit that her reasoning for not doing so is flawed.


 * Nor will I apologize for the response to those actions because it was not I who responded.

This is only fair, but the response to her actions is with a few possible exceptions is not something that requires apology from anyone.


 * Nor will I apologize to my response to the response, as I have done nothing for which an apology is appropriate.

And that is something for this RfC to determine, not Ms. Kelly Martin.

I thank the good editors of Wikipedia in advance for their forbearance. I may have rambled overlong, but sometimes that is the best way to illustrate one's point. Rogue 9 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Test




Edit summary test

 * Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3: Continuing vandalism of userboxes currently undergoing deletion process in attempts to garner delete votes.  Will not acknowledge discussion on talk pages.  See here and here.  Rogue 9 07:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)