User talk:Seanr451
If you've come here to be an ass, feel free. Just don't be offended if I return the favor on your talk page. Seanr451
I do not vandalize pages.[edit]
Just because you don't like the alterations that I may have done to your favorite page does not make me a vandal. It means I disagree with you. Please remember that Wikipedia is a community project, not just your project. Wikipedia's official policy states that I have just as much right to edit a page as you do. If you're here to place a "Do not Vandalize the Wikipedia" warning on my talk page don't. Whatever I did, I did it in the belief that I was following Wikipedia's guidelines. If you believe that I'm wrong then feel free to place a comment here and be intelligent enough to explain exactly what I did wrong. Don't be a fucking retard like some of the Wikipedian's in the past who've accused me of being a vandal simply because I SPELLCHECKED their favorite page. Seanr451 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
If you're here to past more hateful nonsense because you don't like what I wrote on the Islam article talk page, please post it on the appropriate talk page. And please realise that just because you and I disagree doesn't mean that what I post is vandalism. It just means that you and I disagree. In a free and civilized country people are allowed to disagree.
I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists. And I'm sure that not all Muslims believe that I am an infidel that deserves only death. Please prove me right by dealing with me in a civilized manner. Seanr451 11:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Mate, I'm totally with you on the Islamic terrorists section - they are trying to prevent even a mention. Just make sure your section is a summary of Islamic extremist terrorism, and they can't complain. Or at least, the admins can't complain. You're right, Islam is completely biased towards believing Muslims. Thank you for being on the case.Dev920 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The Islamic Wikipedians are complete "bury their heads in the sand" idiots. I place a single link on the Islam page linking Islam to the Islamic Terrorist page and they accuse me of vandalism. Just what world do they live in that there are no such thing as Islamic Terrorists? It isn't the world that I live in. But whatever. I'm not going to fight with them over it. It's not worth it to me, and even though I'm right (probably especially because I'm right) I'd probably just get banned from Wikipedia because I'm sure that at least one of the high-and-mighty Islamic Wikipedian's is probably sucking some Admin's dick. So yes, that means they win. I'm tired of fighting with idiots on the internet and I'm just not going to do it anymore. Seanr451 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that Irishpunktom and Raphael have just been taken to Arbitration, and they are finally losing their battle over the Muslim Guilds (Timothy Usher is the driving force behind it), I don't think that there is reason to give up just yet. Quite frankly, mentioning Islamic terrorism on the Islam page is completely reasonable, and any RfC will come down in our favour. "Evil happens when the good do nothing". Fight on. Dev920 21:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have added a section on Islamic terrorism. I suspect this may turn out to be quite controversial, which is a pity but such fights cannot be avoided. Your support if it does would be appreciated, particularly if it comes down to who has more people to get around 3RR. Dev920 14:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
White Christian Terrorism[edit]
Please don't post 1,000 lines of information on my talk page. Especially stuff that's completely unrelated to the topic. Just because other people have been terrorists doesn't change the fact that muslims have been terrorists, and it should be mentioned. Seanr451 00:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well said[edit]
Well said on the RFC. If you're interested in working on Wikipedia again, it's worth mentioning that Gavin isn't actually deleting articles anymore, although he does still tag them and there are still ongoing disputes on talk pages. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks indeed! Yes, Gavin is not actively deleting articles at this time, and has not really touched GURPS articles in almost a year (although that was his starting point in the anti-RPG march), so if you wanted to come back for that you can try your luck. :) BOZ (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. However I have recently learned to quit fighting with jackasses on the internet. It's much better for my blood-pressure to just avoid it altogether. I plan on coming back and contributing to the Wikipedia RPG articles once Gavin finally gets banned from Wikipedia. I'm just not going to fight with jerks like him anymore. Seanr451 (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Don't hold your breath on a banning anytime soon... but even if that does happen, there are always more out there like him - it's just that most have not stuck with a goal for as long as he has that way. :) We try to do as much as we can while working around him... there is a lot of good we can do, although he can be a real hindrance. BOZ (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well if there's no chance of him being banned, then what's the point of doing the RFC in the first place? This is the second RFC that's been done to/on him. If you guys are gonna keep "reprimanding" him but doing nothing else then he's going to continue to delete articles and disrupt the community. Seanr451 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Such are the failings of the Wikipedia setup. Some people get a dozen chances, some are permablocked on the first offense - it depends what you do and how much. Someone who repeatedly disrupts a single Wikiproject winds up being seen as not much more than a nuisance, so banning is almost entirely out of the question. I'd be fine personally if that were to happen, since I don't feel that any amount of dispute resolution is going to turn Gavin into a nice guy, but so long as we are forced to accept his insistance on involvement we can at least make it hard for him to treat us the way he would like to. And now, we have the word of more than one admin that the next step if he continues is Arbitration Committee. ArbCom does have the power to block, or topic ban, or whatever they feel is needed based on the situation. We can very easily demonstrate that this is a long-term ongoing problem of incivility and lack of assuming good faith towards us on Gavin's part. ArbCom is not a lot of fun to go through, though, so we would prefer not to go there unless he forces our hand. These are the cards we were dealt, and we can either play them, or fold. I, personally, feel that there is too much good work left for me to do here to give up just yet. BOZ (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no, it's not that easy. In fact, it's pretty difficult to get someone banned unless they are flagrantly violating policies (and you-know-who) has been pretty good about skirting the lines just enough to stay out of trouble). On the bright side, he hasn't touched a GURPS article since 2007 as far as I know, and has left D&D articles alone almost completely for about 9 months, so there is always hope for the future. :) If you ever want to come back, there is plenty of good stuff to work on! BOZ (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please do! I can't predict what Gavin may do in the future (but he has mostly left us alone for about 9 months), and I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that no one else out there will try to delete another RPG article, but the environment is a much better one than it was two years ago. We have gotten about 20 articles to "Good Article" and 2 more to "Featured Article" status at the D&D project this year, so there is definitely hope left for the genre. :) BOZ (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no, it's not that easy. In fact, it's pretty difficult to get someone banned unless they are flagrantly violating policies (and you-know-who) has been pretty good about skirting the lines just enough to stay out of trouble). On the bright side, he hasn't touched a GURPS article since 2007 as far as I know, and has left D&D articles alone almost completely for about 9 months, so there is always hope for the future. :) If you ever want to come back, there is plenty of good stuff to work on! BOZ (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Such are the failings of the Wikipedia setup. Some people get a dozen chances, some are permablocked on the first offense - it depends what you do and how much. Someone who repeatedly disrupts a single Wikiproject winds up being seen as not much more than a nuisance, so banning is almost entirely out of the question. I'd be fine personally if that were to happen, since I don't feel that any amount of dispute resolution is going to turn Gavin into a nice guy, but so long as we are forced to accept his insistance on involvement we can at least make it hard for him to treat us the way he would like to. And now, we have the word of more than one admin that the next step if he continues is Arbitration Committee. ArbCom does have the power to block, or topic ban, or whatever they feel is needed based on the situation. We can very easily demonstrate that this is a long-term ongoing problem of incivility and lack of assuming good faith towards us on Gavin's part. ArbCom is not a lot of fun to go through, though, so we would prefer not to go there unless he forces our hand. These are the cards we were dealt, and we can either play them, or fold. I, personally, feel that there is too much good work left for me to do here to give up just yet. BOZ (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well if there's no chance of him being banned, then what's the point of doing the RFC in the first place? This is the second RFC that's been done to/on him. If you guys are gonna keep "reprimanding" him but doing nothing else then he's going to continue to delete articles and disrupt the community. Seanr451 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now, as far as any deleted articles go, if you can find a review in Dragon or White Dwarf or some other reliable source, we can always restore the article. (That's one aspect of the fancy admin powers I've got at my disposal.) We've taken articles that were once nominated for deletion and bumped them up to Good Article status that way, so deletion really isn't as much of a scary monster as it sounds (although it's still no friend of mine). ;) BOZ (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)