User talk:VanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Anyways ...

Whatever the reason, I'm glad you're back. All this because you lost an argument with someone? Slight Smile 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't care all that much for winning or losing arguments. The behaviour (particularly from admins) that surrounded the argument was what has made me decide to look elsewhere. e.g.:

AfD is fun, it's all about getting a high score;
deleting critical and obvious, but unsourced, information that could be easily sourced is far more important and praiseworthy than spending 3 seconds to find the source;
The way to win any argument is to canvas offwiki;
The people that you bring in to the argument have to loudly proclaim that you're God's gift unto editing, and that any criticism, no matter how it is spelt out, is harassment, bullying and so on (i.e., wikidrama is the best defense);
Equally, those people that you bring in should search for and highlight as many issues with your opponents (whether they are actually issues or not), and raise them, preferably simultaneously, in as many venues as possible;
Adminshopping is fine, if you didn't get the response you wanted the first time;
Admins can act against a decision to IAR generated in consensus, and block away;
Admins are above question and consensus once established by one admin once, never changes;
Admins can decide when the dispute resolution process can be used, typically this means that it doesn't apply to them or their friends;
Admins can call for oxymoronic "one sided interaction bans", and that's fine;
Admins can call someone an "angry incompetent drunk" (I'll admit that I was angry), and that's A-OK, but saying that calling someone an "angry incompetent drunk" might be problematic is probably going to involve sanctions being suggested of some sort (that was pretty much the final straw);
Admins rather deliberately misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting a situation (accompanied by baying for blockod) is A-OK;
Battleground statements and polemic are acceptable on user talkpages, whatever is said in the policy (because, see point #3);
And, finally, the entire rulebook goes out the window if a person who is "retired" points out a problem.

Ooh. Another one:

15. An RFC/U can be closed that completely ignores the considered opinions of a third of the respondents, has a dig at the initiator, and essentially rewards and endorses wikidramamongering and offwiki canvassing.

All in all, the culture here is broken. I've gone from seriously advocating for my colleagues and students to use and get involved with wikipedia to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone involved in that discussion (albeit briefly), I have to say that the ANI about misuse of the "Retired" template was so laughable it was unbelievable. I agree with some of your points, but not others, and understand why you feel aggrieved. You made mistakes, but so does everyone, and I've not really understood why everyone seemed to want your head on a stick, figuratively speaking. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Billanook.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Billanook.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LeichhardtCampusLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LeichhardtCampusLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LeichhardtCampusLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LeichhardtCampusLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CastleHillHighLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CastleHillHighLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]