User:JPxG/overpowers the common sense

user · talk · index (prefix) · Wbot · Hbot · logs (CSD · XfD · PROD) V·E
JPxG/Draft 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 35 36 37 38 39 s
JPxG/sandbox 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 100 101 102 105 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 66 67 68 69 87 88 89 89/styles.css 98 98/styles.css 99 asdf colors css css/sand.css old sp

The following is a transclusion of a bizarre and amusing project page I found while it was being nominated for deletion. It would be shameful for this to vanish from the earth, so I am preserving it here.

Wikipedia:The online encyclopedia where the guidelines overpowers the common sense.

This is a page that will be deleted swiftly as a WP:VANDALISM cycle, not only because it isn't a normal Wikipedia article, but because it is a desperate way to a user scream to future users not to register this online encyclopedia. My motives? I will show you below.

Number #1: The common sense is always run over by guidelines.

People tend to register in a online encyclopedia where they have the free rights of creating articles, whereupon unregistered do not. Most unregistered users edits are assumed to be good faith, even though they are really helpful to the page. Unfortunately, unregistered users are known to create vandalism articles, vandalize articles, and it goes on. And on, and on. But, should we really prevent unregistered users from helping to complete a already complete online encyclopedia? I don't think so, but, there are rules. Then, look, rules ate the common sense!

Many rules on this site are so absurd, so specific, it is looking a brainwashing program. Should I begin with Wikipedia:Attack page. Yes, I should.

"An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to speedy deletion. Upon finding such a page, identify it for speedy deletion by prepending the {{db-attack}} template, and warn the user who created it using the

Please do not add content or create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. user warning template. Attack pages should be blanked as courtesy."

According to this rule, this article I'm creating is an attack page on Wikipedia. Also, I'm using Wikipedia own texts as sources. Then, it is a violation, a double violation: Creating a supposed attack page and using non-reliable sources.

Wikipedia is really a site you should not rely on, I must admit that, mostly of us agree on that.

We have now the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which says: "Wikipedia is not a place to promote things or publish your thoughts, and is not a website for personal communication, a freely licensed media repository, or a censored publication."

Ahh Wikipedia, if you only know how much so respected users break that rule, you would be sick. Let's begin with the List of unusual deaths. This page has a really unstable contribution history. Every cartoonish-death on that article is common. Everyone publishes their thoughts on that article's talk page. I stopped because of the ridiculous consensus that the page has reached.

According to a Herostratus on the list of unusual deaths article, he "doesn't care about the gol-ddurn squirrel" and adds: "Phillip Rinn is alive and let's leave him alone per WP:BLP"

Then, the user said: "It's not a very unusual death. It's a boring story of someone killing their pet. Lots of people kill pets every day, and often enough in pretty unpleasant ways. The fact that some cub reporter used "bizarre" in his piece doesn't mean anything, as we are able to make our own judgments; I'm pretty sure we're never required to publish material we don't want to, and for my part we don't want to publish this."

Yep, just a boring story of someone killing their pet. A dog that was dragged, yet managed to survive, then was ran over, managed to survive a few times, then died after another fatal hit by a car. Very common. I bet it would be more common with a boring human killed by other sadistic boring human.

I even left a message to Herostratus userpage:

"Hello sir,

I've been following the List of unusual deaths talk page on Wikipedia, and saw the sections of Abductive, you, and the replies of Brandmeister. I was saddened by the cold hearts you both have, even saying "I don't care about the gol-ddurn squirrel", and saying "Phillip Rinn is alive and let's leave him alone per WP:BLP".

I don't know why just to follow the rules of an online encyclopedia, all of you editors be so rude and selfish to the point to say that a case of a man brutally killing his own dog by dragging it is "a boring story of someone killing their pet". This dog was born a puppy, was probably abused by the terrible owner he already had, and had its tragic destination.

I know you or somebody else will remove this as a daily "vandalism, WP:DRAMA" cycle without reading it, just because I edited your main page, with you proudly showing your badges and list of started articles.

Also, why so much rage towards the squirrel? Only because it was an animal it doesn't count? Then, as I said previously, to just satisfy an article criteria and removing it without even thinking on the obivously strange circumstances which the accident resulted? I'm sure a person, walking in bicycles would need multiple surgeries because of an, how I can say, bit of cartoonish-like accident?

Before my real account gets blocked, I would like to leave a message for Wikipedia,

I have to confess that through my daily editing here I have experienced so much incidents which left me disgusted with the size of imbecile editors who attack others to the point of saying "Get this fucking non-notable X out of Wikipedia" just because the person isn't very much known. I would like to see if they would say this in front of said person (I'm not a man of eye for an eye) but I can't control my grief with so much rude editors here in this website.

I spent most of my days, hours of life trying to friendly add content to this website, but again, people who fly with rage to satisfy aforementioned website rules prevent me to doing so, so that's it. I don't know what will happen next after I post this message on your page, but I'm never coming in this website anymore. I will have to try to do a simpler method of virtal life.

"There is a point where you will be tossed into a roadside ditch and left fending for yourself. Don't take it too personally, all things have to end one day, and even though we've gone a long way together, the day to depart has come for the two of us."

Sincerely, C124"

I'm really getting tired of unburden my thoughts on that website. I regret registering to it.

Like I said, Wikipedia is full of rude editors, and unfortunately I had the disappointment of finding one. I don't remember his (or her) name, but I suggested adding the Pedro Ole article to the list of unusual articles in Wikipedia list. A user came through, said it was nonsense, and nominated the page in a SPEEDY deletion saying that only because all the sources I cited were self-published, it did not established any notability.

I don't see reasons to get so mad at another just because another created a article of an non-notable person without knowing the rules.

This is for you users that had enough of this encyclopedia; join me in this exit, let's search for a more simpler way of virtual life, but of course, if you want to visit this site without editing at all just visit it, also I'm not forcing you to join me, just asking.

"Dear Wikipedia,

I have to confess that for a long time now I have struggled to retain my enthusiasm in editing and doing my daily routine here, but eventually I have come to the conclusion that our relationship was marred and ruined since at least last year, and it was merely a weird sense of obligation that kept me from turning my back on you. I thought starting a new project may revive my interest in you, but in the end all it did was the complete opposite, was to show me that I have enough of shoving countless hours of my life into your insatiable throat. Yes, you are a ravenous, eternally discontent leech of human vigor, and as for every other gutter whore taking pleasure in having a ride with all the mange-ridden dogs in the street, there is a point where you will be tossed into a roadside ditch and left fending for yourself. Don't take it too personally, all things have to end one day, and even though we've gone a long way together, the day to depart has come for the two of us.

Farewell."

Also, I have two puppet accounts. They are User:Rampage killer and User:Elhiggins. Block me, please. I don't want no more to edit to this site, so block me, please.