User talk:Peterchristopher

Blocked

Funny dudes. User "Maxim" has now blocked me for one week. Courageous fellow, one whole week. But I can still type here on my talk page. How generous. What about indefinitely? Perhaps it's because Maxim only blocked me for the offence of "attempting to harrass" -- something not even a legitimate offence according to wikipedia's page on blocking users.

In reality, the reason to block someone like me has to be because it "is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia", "when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project" according to the wikipedia policy. So, does my behavior qualify according to that criteria?

But another question is, does an administrator severely disrupt the project, when he deletes pages inappropriately, and does not recogne legitimate demonstrations of notability as grounds to recreate pages?

I don't claim my behavior is perfect. But shall we apply the standard to anyone we meets the criteria, including you all? I don't think my behavior is any worse by the criteria than that of you idiots.

An idiot, by the way, is a "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning."

Peterchristopher 14:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your behaviour is blockable because it is disruptive and yes, the articles were deleted appropriately. I just read them and there was absolutely no assertion of notability. Sarah 14:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IF it is true that my behavior is blockoble for being disruptive, then your behavior is also blockable because it's also disruptive. How is your behavior disruptive? You have defended abuse of power by other administrators and claim it is justified, based on your misunderstanding of wikipedia deletion policy. You have made statements as an administrator without understanding your own policies, and in fact, you don't know the wikipedia delete policy, do you? I put up a hangon link, and I added relevant information to the talk page about the notability. I also (later) addressed the relevance on other administrator's pages, and in the deletion review. You and your fellow administrators screwed up first, and now you're making it worse by not confessing & atoning.

Now that I've done the research, I've learned that your organization has behaved the same way with hundreds, thousands, other editors. You may be in growing pains. You might grow out of it by having two levels of wikipedia pages: "fully authorized" and "tentative". You administrators would not behave in such a childish manner with the tentative pages, instead you could all focus on being the "first one" to "maintain the accountability" of your organization by policing the "fully authorized" pages. You could let the people who actually know something focus on adding "tentative" pages, that would appear in the search, but would have a "tentative" notation until they were around for several months & reached a higher level of editing quality.

Your destiny up to your organization. I think it's likely that if you don't grow up, we will desert you. Peterchristopher 10:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Thanks for your...evaluation. A "hangon" tag doesn't guarantee that your articles will avoid deletion (please note that the hangon tag itself says: "this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon.") If an administrator looks at the article, and then looks at your "hangon", and they believe that it is not suitable and can't meet our standards, they are not obliged to leave the article up. I just looked at your "hangon" on the deleted talk page and it did not help establish notability, it simply noted original research that you knew the man personally and your assertion that he is notable and that anyone who doesn't agree spends too much time listening to Pearl Jam. The way to save the article would have been to cite multiple, non-trivial, third party, verifiable reliable sources. I think you are laboring under a number of misunderstandings regarding the purpose of Wikipedia and our deletion and blocking policies and notability guidelines, because your claims are, quite simply, false. I am not aware of any administrator abuse concerning you, but I would have been willing to look at your claims of "administrator abuse" and to try to help you bring your articles up to standard, but your attitude is quite foul and does not make me feel inclined to spend any time helping you. If several administrators tell you that your behaviour on Wikipedia is unacceptable and that your articles were not up to our standards, perhaps you should consider the possibility that they are telling you the truth, rather than claiming that they have no clue what they are talking about and that you, instead, have a better knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and their application. If you changed your aggressive and abusive attitude, you would find many people were willing to help you, but I can't think of any reason why anyone would want to help you when you behave like this. If you want to "desert" the project, that is up to you. However, I am quite certain that if you continue down this path with such arrogant, aggression and abusive behaviour and your apparent belief that you have inherent rights on Wikipedia, the project will rather desert you. Sarah 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I wasn't even involved in your article's deletion, the deletion review, the ANI complaints or your blocking, so I find it rather curious that you feel I need to "confess" that I (according to you) "screwed up" and that I need to "atone" for my administrative actions. :) Sarah 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Part II

You people are hilarious. You then even blocked me from my own talk page. What a testament to your immense wisdom. Now the temporary block is over, why don't you block me permanently? Or better yet, let's have a duel? How about New Jersey? Peterchristopher 10:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This threat is hilarious. If you make these comments again, I'll report you for AIV.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 04:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dipshit, You people are all wrong. I challenge you to a duel to the death in New Jersey to prove my point. Peterchristopher 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]