User talk:Saatana/Archive

This is an archive....please do not post anything else here.

OMG
Saatana you are right. This Gwernol guy is out of control. I have nominated him to expel from administration for his abuses before the Arbitration Committee. Please support my case. Thanks! Heres the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration Its on the Req for Arb. page. 71.97.243.176

As soon as I am unblocked then I will do whatever I can to help you out man.

Thanks Saantana GL w/ getting unblocked, he did it to me too for no good reason.

71.97.243.176 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG....are you slow man??? I AM NOT MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS! Comments that you disagree with DO NOT constitute personal attacks. Yes I realize that I just said that you were slow but I am just making a point saying that it is taking you a while to get a point that I have repeatedly said. The reliable sources are the founders....if you want to talk to them then fine. Go do that but dont be close minded....yes you are....about stuff that you dont even know all about. There is plenty of other useless crap here on wikipedia that you can go delete or edit or whatever because its not valid, reliable, or whatever. Hell, some of it isnt even stuff that is real....yet you allow there to be posts about it? How is that encyclopedic?


 * Yes, calling someone "slow" or "thick headed" is commenting on the person, not their contribution. I see you did not read our policy on [{WP:NPA|no personal attacks]] despite it being posted here for you several times, so let me quote from it: "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them... Comment on content, not on the contributor... examples of personal attacks include: Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life.""


 * The founders of Fish Tank Clan are not reliable sources. Again you clearly have not read the guidelines I posted for your earlier, so now would be a great time for you to go back and do so. Hearsay, even from the founder of a gaming clan, is not a verifiable, reliable source. If, to use an extreme example, the New York Times had published a feature article about your clan, that would be a reliable source. Otherwise its all just hearsay and isn't useful for sourcing an article. This is true whether the article is about George Washington or the Fish Tank Clan.


 * Finally, yes there is poor material on Wikipedia. Lots of people are hard at work trying to fix that. Adding more poor material does not help us in that goal, which is why we try not to let it happen. Gwernol 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FINE! How about you tell me what contribution of yours I am to talk about? You have made no contribution at all except to delete my post...which is no contribution at all. Why is it that the people who make something are unreliable, but someone who just learns about that something from the creator and then makes an article about it is reliable? That makes absolutely no sense at all. I hope you are glad that you have lost a potential contributor to this site and I will do everything I can to make sure that everyone else knows the complete and total censorship on this site and the stupidity of some of the rules in the hopes that nobody else has the same experience that I did. Also I did somewhat skim over the links that you posted but I either found they were inane and thus ignored them or I pointed out holes in them but here we are still arguing because some people are unable to accept the fact that there are holes in rules that people can exploit. Also, I made no comments remotely close to the personal attack examples that you posted from the page.Saatana 21:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the personal attack examples I used were all from your comments, none of them were from the examples on the personal attack pages. If you want to understand how Wikipedia functions, you need to read the rules. You decided they were "inane" and you were going to "ignore them", so please don't act surprised when you were called for violating those rules. Sorry you're so upset, but if you aren't going to respect the most basic rules of Wikipedia, what do you expect? Gwernol 21:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, some of the examples you used were from the personal attack pages...maybe you should read your own posts? Also, the reason I decided they were inane and decided to ignore them was because they did not directly apply to what I had said. Perhaps they applied to the numerous inferences that you made in reference to what I said but they did not apply to what I said and meant. Perhaps you could try not to infer or assume what I mean and try not to take offense so easily. I am respecting the basic rules of Wikipedia, but I also exploited "loop holes" in the rules. So if you want to include what I did in the rules then do so, but you should state what you want and not infer your own meaning. And I'm so upset because you and several other people have been complete and total assholes to me and to another person who tried to post this same page. You asked that we do something, i.e. explain the significance of the clan, etc, and we did but you deleted it anyway. And then you ask for more stuff and you give it to us. Also, one of the pages I read on here says that the information has to be verifiable but not the truth...well what kind of bullshit is that? If this is truly an encyclopedia then dont you state the truth? Also, if I go and post some article some other place rather than the clans home page then I can site that and it becomes verifiable right? If you say no, then this is just another example of something that is not explicitly stated and a loop hole that people can exploit. Before you go around messing with other peoples posts maybe you could get your rules and priorities straight. Also, just because it is a personal attack from your inferences of the rules doesnt mean that it is a personal attack and even though you have the ability to block people from editing that doesnt make it right for you to abuse that ability.Saatana 21:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you claim not to be making personal attacks? You called me and the others who edit here "conformist simple minded bastards" (your words on my talk page). I can't believe the amount of energy you've put into this argument...if you had directed it to following the rules and building a quality article, we all would be better off. Some of us still would be willing to help you, but you first should start by showing the process and the experienced folks around here a little respect. We're still willing to help you, but your respect to us and the community here is essential. Akradecki 21:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you claim not to be simple minded? All you do is have a one track mind which only follows your own interpretation of the rules. If you have the power to then go ahead and delete my account because you guys honestly can go fuck yourselves. You are rude and have no respect at all for the material that other people post on here. I thought this was a place where I could post my article in peace but I guess I was wrong and I will not be referring anyone here to this site and I hope to god that I can affect the traffic here negatively. I doubt I am the only person who has had this type of shitty experience.Saatana 22:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, traffic was about 50 million hits per day. Negatively affect the traffic? I think not. Akradecki 22:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Any little bit counts....and maybe you could stop being an arrogant ass? Or would that be too much to ask? Maybe you could get off your high horse and shove your comments up your ass.Saatana 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning
That last post was a personal attack and a breach of WP:CIVIL. Please conduct disputes in a calm manner, even if you feel frustrated. Reason is the best way. Otherwise you are likely to receive a block. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason is the best way until admins start being unreasonable and unwilling to even LISTEN to reason and consider the fact that maybe, JUST MAYBE there are some flaws in this system, i.e. loop holes in the rules, that people can exploit and use to their advantage when posting things on here. With the exception of one or two personal attacks and that last post, which i still think applies because everyone so far has quite frankly been an ass, except for the one guy who agrees with me about gwernol, I have done nothing that breaks your rules. I have provided everything you have asked of me and if anything I merely exploited loop holes in your rules. These loop holes hurt nobody except for those who think they are GOD and it is there right to utterly annihilate other people's posts on the basis of only their interpretation of the rules.Saatana 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia
Please just forget whatever problems you've had in the past - the article that you created was deleted for policy-related reasons. I suggest that you just stop this nonsense now and instead try working on the encyclopedia instead of holding a grudge against people. All this drama is getting nowhere. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 21:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How should I forget my problems when people keep bringing it up? And maybe you could get off your high horse too. It's not like you yourself are perfect. Also, maybe if your policy was clearer and the admins didn't go around inferring their own interpretations of the rules then this wouldn't have happened. Don't tell me what to do because I can do whatever I like. Yes I know you can ban me for disruption or whatever, but quite frankly you all are continuing this. I would be quite content to let the idiocy of the inferrences made and actions taken just be left in the past but YOU PEOPLE keep bringing it back up. How about you all just leave me alone?Saatana 00:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what the mess is with the arbcom case - the other IP address was rightfully blocked for legal threats - I'm not aware of the specifics of your block, but I'm just asking that you just back off from the dispute since it's clearly not making you happy. The best thing to do when other users cause you grief is usually to just ignore them. I won't push this any further - it's clearly not getting anywhere :). Happy editing. Cowman109 Talk 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This will be my last comment about this. I try to ignore the users who to me are morons and who cause me grief. However, this is not possibly when they keep harping on idiocies and posting and reposting stuff that I am trying to leave in the past. They keep perputuating this cycle of arguing and one of my favorite sayings is that arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics...even if you win you are still retarded. The admins and other users here who had my page deleted may have won....but the saying still applies.Saatana 00:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
If you'd like, you can archive your talk page to a subpage (see How to archive a talk page) to tuck this away. That may be a good start - I can help you do that if you'd like, too. Cowman109 Talk 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)