User talk:Buffs: Difference between revisions
deleted notice |
|||
(24 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
<!--Any responses/"corrections" to this will be summarily deleted. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on A&M-related pages.--> |
<!--Any responses/"corrections" to this will be summarily deleted. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on A&M-related pages.--> |
||
{{hat|reason=further responses of optimism and support are genuinely appreciated; thank you. I think my statement stands on its own |
{{hat|reason=further responses of optimism and support are genuinely appreciated; thank you. I think my statement stands on its own. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on/maintaining A&M-related pages.}} |
||
: I apologize for not helping you out for the A&M page. I too feel burnt out. I appreciate your hard work on Wikipedia and I admire how much dedication you have put into this community. Happy New Year. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 05:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) |
: I apologize for not helping you out for the A&M page. I too feel burnt out. I appreciate your hard work on Wikipedia and I admire how much dedication you have put into this community. Happy New Year. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 05:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
::{{ping|Oldag07}} IMNSHO, Wikipedia has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of [[WP:RS]] into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs#top|talk]]) 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) |
::{{ping|Oldag07}} IMNSHO, Wikipedia has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of [[WP:RS]] into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs#top|talk]]) 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:50, 2 December 2024
Final Words
I've been a Wikipedian for 10+ years, but the leftist tilt/bias and open hostility to any dissent (with backing of multiple admins who openly profess anti-capitalist/socialist/communist leanings) has me reconsidering my contributions of any kind. The fact that others are probably cheering right now should give you a massive pause and force you to re-look at this situation, but I doubt it will.
Wikipedia has become a leftist cesspool categorized by groupthink and punishing any dissent, basically as corrupt as academia or mainstream press (where extreme leftists are highly dominant...in the US, 96% of journalists vote Democrat and 90% of Academia does as well). People have sneakily redefined "reliable sources" in terms that effectively exclude any conservative sources...and that's not just my opinion; check the link! Differences of opinion are viewed as opposition to "reliable sources" and, therefore, evidence of malfeasance/being an unreliable source. Claim NPOV all you want, but it isn't when you declare all media that doesn't toe the leftist party line as "unreliable". No, I'm not talking about InfoWars or any other right wing extremist garbage, I'm talking about anything that's right of left of center.
And the media is TALKING ABOUT IT!: [1]. Note that 2 of the admins who blocked me are featured in this national publication.
It sure is easy to be "correct" when no opposition is allowed. All you are going to get is what agrees with you.
Furthermore, those on the right are actively and aggressively punished while rampant incivility from the left is given a pass. I've been cussed out, insulted, shamed, and a host of uncivil behavior with no warnings whatsoever. I have been blocked by an admin who is an avowed leftist/Marxist/Communist for "following someone" (when, in fact, I was continuing to do what I'd announced I was doing 3 days prior). Not even a warning was given to her. been banned for completely made up reasons with no clarification given despite repeated requests and it had to be taken to ArbCom to get resolved. I was even blocked for undoing clear vandalism, an exception in our policies...but that's no matter if you don't mind ignoring the rules you've said you'll uphold (look at my block log for all the evidence you need).
The remaining part of Wikipedia seeks to tear down the work of others by pointing out flaws rather than take time to improve an article. Wikipedians are celebrated for taking pride in tearing down others rather than building anything productive.
While Wikipedia is theoretically worried about their losses, Wikipedians aren't worried about how they are actively driving out contributors. They are reveling in it. If the WMF is genuinely interested in solving the problem, they need to look at their current users/their political leanings as the source of the problems. When approached by John Stossel, a journalist and donor to Wikipedia, they just stopped responding.
IMNSHO, Wikipedia has become a society of gatekeepers who have built an empire constructed with rules designed to tear down the work of others so they can feel morally superior rather than people who collaborate to build something (as we did in the heyday of WP). The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't seem to realize their project has morphed under the guise of WP:RS into an oppressive regime of unnecessary precision/bureaucratic doublespeak wielded to punish opponents or lessers. This FAR/FARC is merely a symptom... and I don't see these people relinquishing that power...the process should be labeled "FARCE".
Way to go. You just lost a Top 5000 contributor with over 25,000 edits and five featured articles...three were the article of the day; everything I did was a manual edit...think about it.
further responses of optimism and support are genuinely appreciated; thank you. I think my statement stands on its own. Compliments are always welcome. I will also finish working on/maintaining A&M-related pages. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
NominationBuffs, I saw the FAC for A&M three days ago, and I just want to tell you that it isn't all bad. Sure, the reviewers appeared less than constructive when it came to the nom, but consensus is consensus and there's no viable way to get around that. It sucks, I know, but don't let it go to your head. The article deserves to be a FA but there is no point dissenting with the coordinators. If I were you, I'd try to get it approved for GA class or A class at least to show off your achievements. I am 100% sure that the article will pass through those noms with flying colors. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Here I came to tell you how pleased I am to see Texas A&M University on the Main page, and now this. Best wishes for what you do, but I for sure would prefer being with us. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Final Words
Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Best of luck for youI hope you continue editing. Not all hope is lost! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
|