User talk:MrGibblets

Do not link to that website again. Thank you.--MONGO 01:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that the place were Satan lives???

Blanking something, don't mean, you have removed it from the internet???

It would seem to me a form of censorship??? yes???

BITE THE NEWBEE....NO WONDER WIKIPEIDA IS A JOKE..... WP:BITE WP:AGF are lies, like wikipeida is a lie...

You have just created one more enemy of wikipedia WTG...

Witch witch... this

"Vandalism-only account: trolling-only account, no good-faith contributions" is stright out of an Arthur Miller play... The Crucible

You guys are a laughing stock of the internet... and you can't help your self's like falling down drunks, sucking to much the drink of petty power and bureaucracy.

What a joke.MrGibblets 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrGibblets: the Wikipedia community, for better or for worse, does not like gadflies. You have my sympathies for choosing to be one. However: if you register another account, I'm positive that you'll find the experience of contributing to an encyclopedia much more enjoyable than that of causing social agitation. Gracenotes^T § 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY SHOULD I CARE??? The insult, implied disrespect, general condescensions is now the typical experience for the new editor. Your invitation is stated with "forked tongue" as the Indian would say about the white man's words. Your words, are lies, as the hypocrisy of wikipolicy and rule of the rules... it's a fiefdom of waring admins..plan and simple.MrGibblets 04:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MrGibblets (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

WHAT A JOKE NO WONDER WIKIPEIDA IS A JOKE.

Decline reason:

If we're such a joke to you, then don't bother coming back. -- Netsnipe ► 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To answer mr netsnipe "If your such a joke to you.... "

I will say, that it is a joke, but a the sad thing is there are people who believe that wikipedia is "Encyclopedic" but in harsh reality it's more like a Massive Multi Online Game. like "second life" or "everquest"...

This test demonstrates to me and others, whom I wanted to show, what the true nature of Wikipedia is all about. Now, becuse it has such google juice, due to the search engine flooding it's a lose cannon on the deck of the internet and as such, it, in IMHO, a "clear and present danger" for the internet.

Now with that being said, I will let my friends know wikipeida is joke, not to be taken as fact only taken as a online game for gamers. MrGibblets 04:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with testing (being a gadfly) is that when others suspect that you're doing something just for the sake of testing, the results can become skewed. I'm sure that you can recognize that it happened in this case. For this reason, you might want to invalidate the results. You are free to view Wikipedia as you choose, however. It may improve your understanding of what we do if you read through WP:FAC, but I suppose that your opinion has already been formed. Gracenotes^T § 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reconized what happend... I got hosed, by power drunk admins, who answers to no one, and is enabled to behave with out fear or retibution or answerable to any rule of law or athority. The test is not skewed, it was right on the money. Don't matter, Wikipeida is a joke.MrGibblets 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid "attack sites" link policy

Since you're the latest victim of the silly pseudo-policy on linking to attack sites (which has never had the vaguest semblance of consensus in its favor, and is merely being pushed by an obnoxious clique), you might find my essay on the subject to be interesting. *Dan T.* 17:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]