"Cyberbullying" topic -> Crowdsourcing will save us

[Vigilant]

You've missed the bus.
Dan is universally respected here.
I can't find anyone here who would miss your posts were they gone.

P.S. You + are = you're, your is a possessive. Sped.

Well I've already had a an email or two warning me that dan was just another bully and blowhard so maybe he is not as respected as you're thinking. So far everyone I have talked to that have come to this forum has the same impression. Just a bunch of cranks and bullies for the most part with one or two gems if you can find them. Thanks for correcting mah grammrs and splings on teh internetz. I assume that was your speciality on Wikipedia. I could use help editing my article if you need something to obsess on lol

Your inability to use correct grammar paints you as marginally intelligent.
Thought you should know.

[560wasbullied]

The "entire study" you provide is simply your own history of your dispute with Wikipedia-- you say practically nothing about what the dispute actually concerned in terms of content, other than it had to do with some theories of Rupert Sheldrake.

Now your being disingenuous Cedric. The issue I faced on Wikipedia is not about the content of the argument, but the behaviors and methods of editors and admins. That's very clearly spelled out in the case study. I was harassed, attacked, and outed in such clear cut examples listed in the study. If what I was arguing for was wrong, that still does not change the harassment. And you obviously did not read the study either. I never argued for Sheldrake's ideas, I was arguing for the lead section of his biography. His basic credentials. I've said over and over I am not a promoter of Sheldrake's ideas and have no opinion on Morphic Resonance. Research into parapsychology has never been an interest for me and I've never even read Sheldrake's works there.

The fact that you, or any Wikipedia editor would continue to use Sheldrake's ideas as some sort of justification for hounding him or other editors trying to edit to a neutral POV is itself abusive.

I guess she deserved to be raped because she was dressed like a slut, right?

[560wasbullied]

Psychic pets! Psychic pets! Please, please, make it be about psychic pets.

Here is another fine example of the astute minds who come to WIkipediocracy to deliberate on the abuses on Wikipedia and help shed light to the public.

[560wasbullied]

Your inability to use correct grammar paints you as marginally intelligent.
Thought you should know.

In YOUR mind and all those smaller.

[enwikibadscience]

Also, I haven't missed the bus, this forum has. Do you think I was actually resting my case on the reactions here? This community has not exactly done the slickest job of presenting the issues to the general public. When the interested public comes here, assuming this is some sort of sanctuary, you all harass them to so you can have your little isolated think tank whining about your poo poos on Wikipedia. I came here to ask for help and offer help to what I thought was a shared message. I've missed nothing, only have earned the wisdom there is not much this community really offers.

If you see nothing of value here, then kindly fuck off.

Please do!

And, will the accused bullies in here strive to be more effective? For all the words against you, you bullies, this thread should have collapsed under the weight of it long ago. I am passing out F's to the bullies.

That's right, failure.

And now, it really is time to close this.

[560wasbullied]

Please do!

And, will the accused bullies in here strive to be more effective? For all the words against you, you bullies, this thread should have collapsed under the weight of it long ago. I am passing out F's to the bullies.

Well! It looks like one of the more astute self described bullies who claimed he was ignoring me was actually and *secretly* following my words the whole time. Amazing

That's right, failure.

learn to love it - I can handle online bullies and actually enjoy the sport! Maybe your just not that good at it?

And now, it really is time to close this.

right, it's time to close it once you've exhausted every last method and ad hom argument available to you and your speechless moving forward in the discussion with me since I've neutralized your every failed attempt. Yup, about time to close this thread! How dare anyone be critical of a forum who criticizes others! Maybe you should get an arbcom hearing on me here too? that's the best way to win an argument online, just censor the person who challenges you the most.

[Vigilant]

Psychic pets! Psychic pets! Please, please, make it be about psychic pets.

Here is another fine example of the astute minds who come to WIkipediocracy to deliberate on the abuses on Wikipedia and help shed light to the public.

Perhaps, we, by and large, find you tedious and shallow.
Have you considered the possibility that you aren't the intellectual titan you perceive yourself to be?

Grief counseling and internet hugs are available outside and to the right.

[Vigilant]

Go back to TED, the Mensa of the intenet.

[560wasbullied]

Perhaps, we, by and large, find you tedious and shallow.
Have you considered the possibility that you aren't the intellectual titan you perceive yourself to be?

I'm not here promoting my personality, if I was I would hardly find your opinions relevant. I'm here to DO WORK about the abuses on Wikipedia.

Now if you say my case is 'shallow' - and leave only a poo poo opinion, then that's irrelevant.

If you can SHOW me how my case is shallow, using brevity and rationality instead of cranky ad hom poo poos, then you might have something of value

Grief counseling and internet hugs are available outside and to the right.

Apparently so is rationality and brevity.

[lilburne]

Perhaps, we, by and large, find you tedious and shallow.
Have you considered the possibility that you aren't the intellectual titan you perceive yourself to be?

I'm not here promoting my personality, if I was I would hardly find your opinions relevant. I'm here to DO WORK about the abuses on Wikipedia.

Why would we want to fix that? Personally the more abuses on WP the better, we should do all we can to encourage it.

[560wasbullied]

Why would we want to fix that? Personally the more abuses on WP the better, we should do all we can to encourage it.

I'm assuming your question was sincere and not sarcastic. vague to me how abuses on Wikipedia would be a valuable contribution. Personally, I believe in collective editing and consensus building platforms. If Wikipedia was about the size of Wikipediocracy, then I would not care. The fact that both Google and Apple use Wikipedia's meta data for broader distribution of that data I find troubling if that data is corrupted. Wikipedia influences more people than one single major media channel, such as FOX or CBS. That makes me uncomfortable.

Perhaps I assumed that the community here wanted Wikipedia to be 'better'. I take it that perhaps many just want to see Wikipedia lose and the whole notion of collective editing collapse. IF that is the case, boy did I come to the wrong forum!

[HRIP7]

I think everyone has said their piece. Topic locked.