User talk:Deathgleaner

'''Those who read English will appreciate Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators, which appeared to me at a search on the keyword Wikipedia on Twitter. Some rare gems in this post. - Dereckson ( d) August 27, 2009 at 07:05 (EST)'''

-- billinghurst (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

All right! This page lookin sexyyyy!

Obscenity
Please avoid cursing at other editors and ordering them to do things. Part of the intent of a wiki is to work by consensus, which means if you think that Uncle Tom's Cabin/Chapter I should not be marked as prose (which it is), it's your responsibility to explain why.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably enough of the pottymouth and the attitude. Happy to have you here on equal terms, not so happy with the high and mighty and the insults. Happy to answer and to respond to a genuine query. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the flames, but I think three sources is enough to prove that it is NOT a prose. I was just getting f*ed up about everyone trying to revert my edits done in good faith. Deathgleaner (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the tag of Prose, it is more a label for the formatting, than a categorisation. The categorisation of importance, is what you would see at a work's primary page eg. at Uncle Tom's Cabin.  My reason for initially reverting was that you only took out the top tag, and not the bottom.  The commentary that I would have found useful is that removing the tag aligns the formatting of the whole work, and I would have gone and looked wider.  As it was, it was hard to know why the edit had been made. For your info, this is not WP, and does not generally have that level of combativeness.  We have a small community of regular active members, and are very happy to support newbies and newcomers, though, we have shared expectations. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No number of sources is ever enough to prove anything. I can come up with dozens of sources proving that Elvis lives and that man has never walked on the moon. Your claim still bewilders me; not only is Uncle Tom's Cabin a novel, and hence prose (and it would be nice for it to show that you read those links before responding), I don't see how those links show that the text wasn't prose. (And there's no article before the word prose.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, it may not be totally proved but it's ample evedence. So quit not beliving it. Besides, all the chapters in the sources were formatted the same way, so it is my belief that the whole thing is either prose or not. Why would an author JUST write the first chapter as prose? WTF??? Deathgleaner (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it you didn't read the pages I linked to. It's not necessarily true that the whole thing is either prose or not; many authors have mixed prose and poetry in their novels, and it is the tradition in classical Chinese and Japanese novels. As far as I know, however, the whole part of Uncle Tom's Cabin is indeed prose, unless you are claiming it's poetry. Thus the rest of the novel should be marked as prose.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether your edits are good faith as you plead at the beginning of this header, they are so erratic, especially the edit summaries, that you need special guidance, which you are refusing. I am going to block you for 14 hours so you don't prevent us from carrying on with our lives.  ResScholar (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh… those links. Okay I just read them, and it basically says a novel is usually written in prose. A prose is a piece of writing that resembles everyday speech. There are tons of novels on this wikisource project, so why aren't they ALL marked prose? I don't get why you would only mark one chapter of one novel as prose. Besides, Beecher Stowe is not Chinese or Japanese. Deathgleaner (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Billinghurst already explained the purpose of tags as formatting devices. If you ask him nicely, maybe he will explain further.  But you will have to do so from here because I'm blocking you again for 36 hours for harassing the admins.  [mis-signed] ResScholar (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead block me. Like I really care. I'm not afraid. I still hate administrators like you. Deathgleaner (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hidden text
Your hidden text in this edit is probably not appropriate, would you mind removing it? Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Jeepday (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:"right to reproduce it here" I would point out it is not a right to post it here, it is a privilege to post it here. Is there a problem with copyright? The link provided at the top of the page is to Thought Box which has a copyright notice at the bottom.  The listing on thought box does not list a source so it would appear to a copyrighted original version on that site. I beleive that there is a policy allowing a link to copyrighted works WS:Copyright but you claim it is published some place else as CC and the link you provide does not provide source information, so that would be a copyright violation, which would be counter to the policy. Jeepday (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem… the link you are talking about is MY blog as it says so in the sub-heading "Deathgleaner's reviews…" blah blah blah. I can link to my blog, and the text that precedes and succedes the link is from the French Wikipedia. Deathgleaner (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The link provided appears (to me) to be to an original work you wrote and posted on August 26, and it reads like an original work by you. So I am confused by the statement "This was on the Fr.Wikipedia Bistro at Wikipédia:Bistro and since all the content here is CC and GFDL licensed, I have the right to reproduce it here". Jeepday (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it really say that on my blog? Can you give me a link to where it says that? Deathgleaner (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh now I see. I can see why you're confused. I'm saying that This: "Those who read English will appreciate Why I really hate Wikipedia administrators, which appeared to me at a search on the keyword Wikipedia on Twitter. Some rare gems in this post. - Dereckson ( d) August 27, 2009 at 07:05 (EST)" was on the Fr.Wikipedia bistro and that the stuff on the Fr. Wikipedia bistro is CC and GFDL licensed. Not the material on my blog. Deathgleaner (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And are you saying it's a privilige to edit one's own user/talk page?! That's like saying it's a privilege to decorate your house (forget about the price of buying items to decorate it; has nothing to do with this analogy). 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The privilege is to to have a user page to to edit. Wikisource does not have specific policy on user pages (that I am aware of) but W:Wikipedia:User page is fairly generally excepted as consensus.  Obviously if you used the user page to try and run your own version of Ebay that would be a problem, no one has a right in the legal sense to own anything on the Wiki's. Everything here becomes community property that is the nature of the project .  In actual practice it is consider bad form to edit an other users user page, and the expectation is that the individual user is using their page to further the goals of the project. Jeepday (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Alone
Hey dude, I read your article, and I agree with you 100% It sucks that Wikipedia has been ruined by all this corruption.Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks man! If you want to help, spread the word and put the link on your user page/ user talk page, or just tell friends in person. Much appreciated! Deathgleaner (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * These administrators waste an obscene amount of time climbing the social ladder so that they can be pretentious about their credentials and authority in some stupid online encyclopedia. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are just kids or under-accomplished slackers with too much time in their hands. Cheers. 64.229.123.59 06:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
If I posted to many times on your blog I'm sorry, is that the reason why you closed you comments section here:http://g-liu.com/blog/2009/08/why-i-really-hate-wikipedia-administrators/#comment-28845. I apologize, I was just trying to figure out why my recent comment wasn't being posted on there, sorry. 2600:1000:B00A:46B1:4D7D:7C22:4B5C:46B4 01:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Bigshowandkane, nice to see you again--still trying to argue that vandals have a right to edit Wikipedia? Deathgleaner, you're dealing with this guy, Sockpuppet investigations/Bigshowandkane64/Archive. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)