User talk:Happy Bunny Fan

Given your creation of the attack page Wikityrant as your first edit, I'm going to assume this is your new username created because an older account got blocked or you otherwise burned too many bridges. You're off to a hell of a start.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. I have never been blocked or burned bridges aside from my own personal decision to stay away from Wikipedia at times due to a lot of condascending treatment amounting to intellectual barbarism.  This article is only too appropriate (and overdue) for Wikipedia.
 * Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.  --Fuhghettaboutit 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize. But you tagged it as an attack that quickly?  Presumptuous, no?
 * The article is clearly an attack, and I have re-tagged it after your removal of the previous speedy tag. Please do no remove tags - it is considered to be vandalism. If you have such a low opinion of wikipedia, may I point out that your participation is not compulsory.--Anthony.bradbury 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not presume it was an attack, I read the article's text which was, in fact, an attack. I see you have reposted it. Why not spend your time making a useful contribution rather than tilting at windmills?--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see that the article I just tagged has been recreated. --Brat32 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, because you kept deleting it while I was trying to edit it to demonstrate how it was NOT AN ATTACK. Thanks for proving my point!

Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Wikityrant) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Brat32 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Define nonsense and apply the definition to my article. I ask you simply to do this before any more flagging, tagging, deleting, or brow-beating.

STOP! JUST STOP! You have (all) broken policy twice already by showing no good will. So JUST STOP for a second!!!

First: this is not an attack article. If you think it is: prove it. It's just a word, a word I'm trying to define. If you're not being a Wikityrant, you have no reason to object to someone else defining the term.

Second: this is a very useful contribution. Whether it rubs your belly the wrong way or not, this is a term which can be clearly defined and which helps to illustrate to Wikipedians how NOT to treat others. In fact, I think this may be the most useful article I've seen here in the last few months.

Hmm, if you know policy so much with so few posts, maybe you are a ......Sock Puppet. I think of myself as a Wikityrant and think you (whoeverr you are I don't know, since you don't sign your posts) have been attacking me - sad --Brat32 23:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Brat32, do you consider this attitude (apparent even in text) appropriate to Wikipedia? Some "welcoming environment".  Delete first, ask questions later.  You consider me sad?  Not sure what to say about that, except that if you continue this, then you are the problem here, not me.


 * If anything, the page is a non-notable neologism - if you really feel it should be created, it should be in the Wikipedia namespace, perhaps as the polar opposite of WikiFairy. Cowman109 Talk 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be created, but I will have to see if time allows after today. Thank you for your (rare) constructive suggestion.

I see the article is blocked now. Very good. I wondered how long it would take. You are children. You have proven me right in so many ways for trying to define what is wrong with this site.

If you're wondering why I would bother to begin the article, it's because I'm intelligent. I usually want more context than articles on Wikipedia provide, and that inevitably ruffles feathers with others who don't like to think outside their respective boxes. I am fine with going somewhere else. On occasion, though, I can't help but to see if there's any reason to hold out hope for Wikipedia, and you have clearly demonstrated there is not.

Thx.