Talk:Internet democracy
Tiaktiv content breaks multiple Wikipedia rules
Re: protection of this page, discussion has already been completed (and is archived) regarding the dispute. There is only one anonymous person who continues to disagree and wreak havoc here. Since this anonymous person wants to place text in the article that breaks the rules of the Wikipedia, there really is no compromise that can be offered. Following are those rules (What Wikipedia is not) that the anonymous person breaks with his "Tiaktiv" version of "Internet democracy":
- What Wikipedia is not
- 3. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (The anonymous one's admission that his concept is "new" proves that he is evangelizing a concept that is not yet encyclopedic)
- 4. Wikipedia is not a means of calling people names or bashing people. (As evidenced in page history and talk, this person is abusing people left and right)
- What Wikipedia entries are not
- 6. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. (The anonymous one is advocating for a unique interpretation of "Internet democracy" as coined by himself alone)
- 9. Personal essays that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. (Read the archived discussion to see how idiosyncratic the anonymous one's views are)
- 10. Primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. (The anonymous one is coining a new term but trying to hijack a term already in existence as evidenced by the proper article)
- 18. A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. (The anonymous one's version contains only one external link pointing to his "Tiaktiv" web site)
I think the evidence clearly shows that the anonymous one has simply become intransigent and is continuing to act in an irrational manner to disrupt a proper Wikipedia article. And this is despite the many options this person has to properly rectify the situation. Many suggestions were indeed provided to him to give him ways of getting his ideas out without disrupting this article. But sadly, these suggestions were ignored and this person has chose instead to berate others and engage in destructive behavior that seems to have no end. -- Stevietheman 13:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Further, since the anonymous one continues to refuse to register, he has decided to not be individually responsible for his work in the Wikipedia, but instead play games with changing IP's and continual article destruction. -- Stevietheman 13:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Responses to rule-breaking
Look Stevie, you pathetic looser. You first did not allow me to create internet democray link, because you said e-democracy fulfills its all demands. Then I said what I have in mind, is a political system, not a bunch of everything.
You said I have no right to create new concepts and started continuigly deleting whatever I wrote, even thought about voting for deleting this concept. But your friend who belongs to the same group of a worthless semi-idiots decided to create a new falsly concept that never existed before he did it. Then you accepted it, even just two hours before you denided possible existance of internet democracy in any way.
Now, you and several more idiots who have no life, decided to "protect" your wikipedia, the small world where you pathetic loosers can be free and where you can dictate whatever your vanities decide to do.
This is a very said thing to the World. The thing normal people let you live and do things that do a harm for our society. But, hey! We have to bring our karmas wherever we go. I know your karma is pretty tough one, you idiot.
One more thing. People who decide to enter this "discussion". First read history of this. I am tired of morons who put their emotions before common sense.
Gale
Thank you, Gale, for proving my points. Now, let's move on. -- Stevietheman 12:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your only point is that you have no clue about things you are dealing with. Anyway, as long as semi and complete idiots are in majority on this topic, there is no point of intorducing of the new concepts to the world. So, my suggestion to those who made this place have at least a little bit of decency, is to remove this concept, because what we have there is something that creates confusion.
BTW, write in google search internet democracy. What you will get is definitelly not something that needs to be placed in wikipedia.
PS. Stevie, how much does it hurts to be that stupid?
Gale
Time to move on. If you have content to add to the article that actually fits in, that should be considered OK by others. It's time for you to admit that your specialized content is based on concepts that essentially don't exist in the wild. It's time to be intellectually honest so we can all move forward here. -- Stevietheman 04:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You miss the whole point, Stevie.
Internet democracy as a concept you mentioned DOES NOT EXIST! When I say Internet democracy, it is something as if I said blue cotton. Two different words where one gives better aproximation of the second one.
That is not a concept but nothing! And you can check it out very easy by writing down Internet democracy on the google search. And not just that, you can notice that concept I introduced here is mentioned pretty regularly out there.
So, being a honest person as I am, I did let you have your meaning even it makes no sense, unless you let me put there something that actually makes sense. And you did not let me do that, but you keep promoting something you never use! And that is actually normal, considering the FACT e-democracy is the term that people use.
And you could be honest and admit that you did not let me introduce this new concept saying we already have this e-democracy stuff.
So yes. It is time to move on. It is time to let me put what I have in mind, or remove this, becuase this what we have there has LESS right to be written down, than what I did put!
And as long as you keep deleting what I write, not letting it to be at least A PART, at least A MEANING that some people take as, I wont give you the right to mess with this concept, just because you have some attitude problems.
Gale Gale
No, the point is not any dispute you have with the current article. The burden is on you to prove the encyclopedic relevance of your content, and you still haven't done that.
By the way, stop vandalizing this article. It's childish behavior. -- Stevietheman 22:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Further, what don't you understand about: The Wikipedia isn't for introducing new concepts? Your content breaks the rules I listed above. Yet, all you can do is attack others and commit destructive behavior. You need to understand that we're not going to back down and just let you have your way. As long as you continue breaking the rules, you aren't getting anywhere. -- Stevietheman 22:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What does it mean new concpet? World knowledge is speeding up because of this media. Something that was new a year ago, thanks to the Internet becomes well known a year after. What is the line you can drove and say what belongs to wikipedia and what does not?
The only line I can clearely see is that concepts that are adequatelly profilated and accepted by public debate belong here and things that are not concepts at all do not belong here.
So, considering this, and considering the prime world search base, google, it is you who vandalising.
Yet. From another point, you are propagating something that does not exist, concept that is not a concept, something your frined made up and you took as good just to opose me. Remember, at first you claimed that internet democracy as a concept DOES NOT EXISTS! So, you, great expert who is fighting for the good of wikipedia can not claim something like that and kepp your reputation of somebody who makes sense.
Gale
So, let me ask you 1 thing? How can you feel competent to change this issue if it was you who said that internet democracy does not exist? If I was you, I would let to other people who did not jump in their own mouth to do this. And I, as a person who publicly admited that I do not not have a clue about this concept, would let it go.
Why dont you do that? Why dont you do a thing that would stop further embarasment of your name?
Gale
You know what you needed to do to preserve your content, and you didn't produce any evidence of encyclopedic relevance. Further, nobody else to date has been convinced of your position. Go ahead and keep putting your dubious content in here, and the article will be locked again.
Why do you insist on acting like a child who can't get his way? -- Stevietheman 00:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Potential Compromise
To help end this conflict, I would like to reoffer a compromise idea I made before. Gale could create an article named Internet democracy (political system) and it could be linked to as a "See also" in Internet democracy. There, Gale could have his entire article intact. And there, he can debate with others whether his content is encyclopedic. -- Stevietheman 13:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Gale, why don't you just accept this compromise so we can move on? It gives you an entire article to yourself to spread your "new concept". -- Stevietheman 20:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)