User:Aarandir

Im not going to bother any more with my admin rant, im not granted the freedom of speech on Wikipedia, because its regarded as "soapboxing" which sounds like an erotic form of wrestling to me if anything, i think its completely wrong for it to be forbidden to present your opinion, because its one step closer to a totalitarian encyclopedia where everything bad is glossed over to achieve a superficial perfection. But i was just fed up with the amount of fucking arseholes i met on this site that i had to let the world know, im sure you can understand how i felt. It was a contentious opinion but still not wrong, i believe. So now im just going to be like Winston Smith, ive faced Room 101 (which is having the whole world against you) and now I love Wikipedia.

I am only 19 years old. And im not as arrogant/snooty/posh as i may come across as, im a working class with middle class tendencies East Londoner EAST LONDONNN!!!!!!! BLUP BLUP BLUP (london slang, never mind...). I am not a pedant when it comes to spelling to the extent that its still intelligible, e.g. I can live with "Oi, u aint gt a propa point arguin wiv me lyke dat", that's fine, i can live with that but something i hate is something like this "Oi, u int gt a prpa . argun wv me lyk da"... you see my point? And another thing: when typing something please quickly recap the grammar because sometimes (i do this as well) while typing fast you forget to check what you've typed before and when you mean to say "And I dont like marmalade on toast becuase strawberry jam is better" you end up typing "Any I do like marmalade no toast becuase strawberry jma si better". I am a musician; a piantist and a composer (which coming from east london doesn't get me any favours from my peers). Now when it comes to music I have strong, passionate almost fascistic views. I belive this "moderism" and "avant-garde" music/art/architecture and all other art forms that is being shoved down are fucking throats this past century are totally baseless. I particularly hate (and wish i could kill, if it didn't necessitate consequences!) Schoenberg, Berh, Boulez and Cage. Minimalism is ok... but nothing more than ok. TO me all of phillip glass sounds the same and it lacks creativity. I like good old tonal music, my faviorate era is the romantic, my faviorate composer is Chopin, pure genius that man was nothing else and that's why he died young like many other good musicians i also have huge amounts of respect for Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, Rachmaninoff, Korsakov, Grieg, Liszt and Strauss, i love the Russian composers and compose in a Russian/Eastern European style my self. I think you can justify arrogance if you can back it up with skill to a certain extent, but Wager is just a complete bastard so i like his music but i hate the man. I also hate Beethoven (shock shock horror horror), on the surface his music seems nice, but going in deeper you can see it just repition of old themes, plagiarism, poor poor poor attempts at writing a climax, the simplest harmonies and lack of an admirable melody. All show, no substance. His later pediod music is a blatant copy of romantic music; the 3rd movement of his Pathetique sonata makes me laugh at how obviously its just a "sugared" copy of Shubert. As i said coming from East London this cornucopia of music knowledge (or knowledge generally) doesn't get me any respect from my peers. Laugh out loud.

Joke of the week

Two ducks in a pond, one says "Quack quack" the other goes "Ah fucking hell, i was just gonna say that!"

A bit lackin... but still good

Major Contribs[edit]

For those of you who might have ideas as to me being a bastard looking for arguments to take part in not actually contributing here are articles i have improved from greatly to a little bit(in no order):

History of rail transport in Pakistan
Indo-Saracenic - im really proud of this :)
Mughal Empire

other contibutions exist but they're just minor

Wikipedia is perfection, nirvana, eudaimonia amongst other things.[edit]

If your idea of an encyclopedia is one where everyday, hundres of articles are vandalised, where any fact that sounds remotely true is allowed in with the "citation needed".^{[citation needed]} comment while sticking true to the inherent contradictions of a blatant totalitarianism regime with a "no original research" policy, where NPOV is supposedly a major policy but still non neutral POV's always creep in, where discussions lead to long, heated, pointless, arguments which boil down to controversial topics such as nationalism, rascism, classism and all other types of isms, where usually one type of centrism is sacrificed for another, where immature bastards strut around with unholy amounts of responsibility doing as they wish if that is your idea of an encyclopedia then Wikipedia is the encyclopedia for you! Says allot about me that im part of it, but im not being hypocritical because i only use Wikipedia to do good, because i am god, and get blocked while im at it.

Lovely[edit]

I recently found this goldmine:

User:Aarandir has a section of his userpage devoted to admins, featuring a picture of Samael and using such niceties as "twat," "pedantic," and "pointless." The top of his talk page is organized into a section called "Arguments I have won," also mainly starring admins. His most recent trick has verbal abuse of me for my use of quotation marks when I tried to help him, apparently because he thinks quotation marks are actually sarcasm marks. The whole exchange is quoted here, where he can also be observed treating User:Isotope23 rudely. His post to my talk page, which is mean-spirited and sexist, is here. She was talking to me on my talkpage having a discussion about whether something i said was sexist or not, while behind my back she was here... complaining. I don't think you can blame me for feeling betrayed

I'm not comfortable using admin powers regarding people who have made me angry, but this guy is clearly out of line in a lot of ways. Please advise. --Masamage ♫ 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked him to remove the image for a number of reasons. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified reasons may I add, they had very powerful and conspicuous statements saying "this is not me soapboxing

I've already asked him to remove his arguments I've won talkpage section and he essentially refused to do so. Rudeness directed at me isn't something I'm concerned about... but in the couple of days I've engaged in conversation with him I get the distinct impression that he is more concerned with winning arguments than he is with improving the encyclopedia. His reply to Masamage (talk · contribs) was absolutely out of line.--Isotope23 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, im concered with winning arguments to the extent that im not doing anyone harm or its not for a bad reason. But i have and will continue to improve this encyclopedia

I don't agree with Aarandir's conduct, but with him rarely editing the past couple days, I fear a block at this point would be more punitive than preventative (any other thoughts on this?). I've also left a comment about his other image; until Wikipedia:Respect my authoritah! becomes policy, it's only fair he not be allowed to be polemic on either end of the spectrum. -- tariqabjotu 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call on the second image. I wouldn't have thought of that. --Masamage ♫ 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call? Silly and immature if you ask me. Wasnt very amusing just showed immaturity.

I wasn't suggesting a block here. I've been engaging him the last few days and as I said in my last reply to him, I see this ending badly for him at some point in the future if he continues to engage his fellow editors in this manner; but I agree, blocking him right now would absolutely be punitive.--Isotope23 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do? --Masamage ♫ 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for personal attacks ARE preventative. If he's that blatant about having a crusade against the admins, there's no indication he'll stop. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I still hate bad admins, but im not saying if they exist or who they are if they do. I never in the first place sought out to fight admins, im not on a crusade. It started with one article which i was trying to defend and will continue to do so.

As he considers himself a "21st century Socrates" on his userpage, he probably won't stop until he's given his cup of hemlock. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea... i had called my self Socrates for a long long time and never until now had a "fight" this only started because of the Un Bongo article, this wasn't actually a crusade as i said before.

don't we know how this ends? someone needs to do some research but there is clearly something like a "50 edit" rule - if your first 50 edits are full of crap then generally... --Fredrick day 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. IMO this editor is clearly a troll, either just ignore until s/he plays out enough rope to hang himself, or sanction in some way. I hate giving trolls wanking material, which IMO a lot of this stuff about the pics etc is. Anchoress 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not a troll...

So what would be considered the upper limit of trollishness? Please note that the behavior has continued on his talk page; he has now told User:Tariqabjotu, "You also say that you find it offensive that im calling some admins saints. If this is the case than I think there might be something wrong with you, no where has being good been considered offensive except incidently in the mind of psychos and sufferers of other mental diseases." --Masamage ♫ 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Its true though

Sorry, were you replying to me? I don't understand the question. Anchoress 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant, how bad does it have to get before we do anything? Because that thing I just quoted is pretty lame. --Masamage ♫ 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The upper limit of trollishness is pretty individualized, but he's exceeded mine. Almost all of his edits are to talk space (and of an unconstructive nature). We would be losing out on image uploads like this one (note edit summary), but that may be an acceptable price. I think the best approach to this kind of childish trolling is probably WP:SHUN, as he seems to just want someone to argue with. But if some other admin thinks he should be blocked, I don't think I'd lose sleep over it. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Come on! Its a funny summary albeit factual

On a lighter point, you've got to admire the gall of someone who has a picture taking the piss out of someone's spelling mistake at the top of their talk page, following by a paragraph full of spelling and grammar errors (first sentence: ..." I have also seen it being used to pedal hatred."....) EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC) yea... the difference which you've failed to notice is that Tesco is a megacorporation which eats 1 out of every 8 pounds in Britain whereas i am an insignificant human being. And i never claimed to have perfect spelling and its not actually a requirement on Wikipedia.

This is also amusing: "With Admins its almost as if they get a place of responsibility on the internet and thier ego grows and they think they are always right, however I can prove them wrong with my tremendous argument skills even though they seem to thing thier logic is infallible." - Merzbow 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tis amusing ill agree but ive written funnier stuff. Blocked for a week. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ballsy. Thanks. --Masamage ♫ 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Fayssal, i commend you on your decision.