User talk:Zxcv9
Long-term 'experienced' editors honestly don't give a f*ck about Jimmy Wales' opinions re WP: "Just a random opinion from me: I wonder if it's rude to template, period. I have done it some, myself. But it is not clear to me that it's a very human and welcoming thing to do. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that templating regulars is less rude than templating newbies. I mean, we all know what is going on, we often communicate through shorthand acronyms. Templates designed for old timers could be concise. But for newbies, it's probably better to say hello and explain something in a human way!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)"
- ----------------------------------
"Wikipedia appears to have a strange undefined organisational structure, or lack thereof. It seems to be run by some Mad Max-like community stuck in the middle of the desert. Contributors have to submit to many editors that follow meticulously baroque editorial guidelines, which are imposed in an inconsistent fashion." http://www.zdnet.com/article/wikipedia-losing-contributors-fatal-flaw-the-community-editors/
- ----------------------------------
Assume_no_clue with hypocritical editors!
- ----------------------------------
Best WP quote: "Remember, the most important thing to a bureaucrat is bureacracy and the rules. Sanity is no defence [[User:William M"
- ----------------------------------
- As I have been threatened and this page has been subjected to 'User space harassment' from long serving editors who should know better, note I remove such harassing "false or questionable "warnings" (from my) talk page" immediately. Thank you.
- ----------------------------------
- Harassing editors please also read: Wikilawyering and GET OVER IT as you're not doing Wikipedia any good! What's bad for WP is:
- -"Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
- -"Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.
- -"Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.
- -"...wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims.
- WP:Wikilawyering
- ----------------------------------
- "Disturbed" long-serving editor/admins can strategically use baiting to get newbies removed.
- "a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor. Most discouraging of all, this tactic is nearly risk-free. There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it..."
- ----------------------------------
Your account will be renamed[edit]
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Arsey. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Arsey~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
22:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Block message[edit]
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tort1001. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Euryalus (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC) |
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zxcv9, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)