User talk:Rich church mouse

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Wirtland has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \btypepad\.com\b (links: http://inconversation.typepad.com/prfromthebeach/2009/01/fed-up-with-your-own-country-well-heres-a-virtual-one-for-you-inhabit.html). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

''Thanks, XLinkBot. The new links appear OK, so I reverted delete. Rich Church Mouse. ''

Big Brother in Wiki
You're totally right. Wikipedia is a completely Orwellian atmosphere, and certain policies people propose make me more and more worried that our actions are being looked over too much. It's a fatally flawed system that shouldn't work by any means at all. Jimbo was a fool to think it would work, but a fool with enough guile to pull a working project out of it. We party members have to work hard to keep Wikipedia running, with the administrators of Big Brother looking down on us whilst the proles look for advice (or vandalise the place). We help the 'pedia survive by implementation of a series of loosely bound policies, which we try our utmost to ensure. If comparing this scenario to a Nineteen Eighty-Four universe, perhaps you consider yourself to be Winston Smith, the rebel who fought against his masters. But, I promise you, if policy says 2 + 2 = 5, the article will be deleted. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sure, I'd try and counter the problems if I could. But I can't. I just think myself lucky that the major flaws don't really come to light. There should be much more serious problems to worry about, but we battle through. Think of it this way: imagine an elephant is sitting on you whilst you're playing scrabble with some friends. Do you ignore your friends and try, hopelessly, to free yourself from several tons of weight? Personally, I'd rather enjoy playing scrabble. The elephant is a serious problem that's affecting my game, but it's not stopping me completely. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 17:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of Wikipedia editors are teenagers. Is that a problem? As for the SPI, I feel we should let it run its course. If you've contacted the arbiters about something personal, then that's fine. They'll deal with it and the rest of us won't ever find out what it is. And if I were to remove my comment, someone else would just add it again. Seems much like a waste of effort to me. Además, if you're so concerned with Wikipedians, the processes and policies of Wikipedia and being part of this community, I do feel obliged to ask why you remain here? Greg Tyler <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wirtland (micronation)
By "volatile nature of the edits to this article" I simply meant that the article was not currently stable. Although it had not been edited for a few days there was still discussion ongoing on the talk page. I possibly could have worded it better and will update my wording on the SPI page. Dpmuk (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)