Misplaced Pages

User talk:Starcade: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:31, 25 July 2011 view sourceChristianandJericho (talk | contribs)978 edits Hi: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:04, 25 May 2022 view source MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(47 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{retired|date=July 27, 2011}}
'''Welcome!'''


==Starcade's Final Statement==
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I had a sick feeling it would come to this. It always seems to, in this day and age.
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:A Nobody|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


This will probably be declared my last wiki-edit by the administrators (and that's even if I'm allowed to put this on my Talk page), for I am compelled to believe that the administrators of Misplaced Pages will have to extend my ban permanently, not as a function of a Wikibreak, but as a function that I cannot exercise “good faith” in a consensus which does not care whether the information is accurate, verifiable, or even true.
== Please Stop ==


In fact, given the current state of Misplaced Pages, it is no longer sufficient nor even necessary to act in “good faith” and provide verifiable information. What is sufficient, and the only thing necessary, is to provide information the collective will ''accept'' as verified – note that I did not say “verifiable”. If the garbage I have to put up with like on almost every meaningful edit I've made in the last eight weeks is true, the collective has already spoken and I have no place on Misplaced Pages whatsoever, especially because I believe that the consensus is not only wrong, but either flagrantly mis-informed or down-right stupid.
Please stop vandalizing this page, what you are doing is intentionally removing information which compromises the neutrality and integrity of Misplaced Pages. You are currently in the minority of users on your opinion of the topic.


This stands in violation of basically all five pillars of Misplaced Pages.
*The majority do not determine fact, unless you wish to be one or more of the growing number of people in our society who do not believe in the concept of a singular truth. That said, unfortunately, a 1-hour discussion with some of the Misplaced Pages helpers does appear to be on your side, as Misplaced Pages does not believe in ''damnatio memoriae''. I openly do, as I believe it as dishonest for an encyclopedia to represent fraudulent events such as the 2004 and 2005 seasons of USC as historical and encyclopedic fact. As a result, I am compelled by this decision to restore, as repugnant as it is, Ben Johnson to have won the footrace of the 100 meter dash at the 1988 Olympics, with the proper denotations of what happened afterward. --] (]) 23:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


First, '''Misplaced Pages is NOT an encyclopedia''' as long as the general public is allowed to edit it, but only in the form in which a collective will accept.
] Please stop your ]. If you continue to ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 --> ] (]) 18:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


I will give a good example of this in the first real problem I ran in to about 6-8 weeks ago:
*Why don't you just tell me to stop editing at all? --] (]) 03:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


]. I tried a number of edits to properly represent the BCS' nullification of the participation of USC in two illegal Championship Games, and removing their designation, since the games no longer are believed to have taken place. http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=6632189 An edit war began on that subject, and the subject of Misplaced Pages's rules regarding “no '']'' came up. I proposed, and repeatedly, that the concept of ''damnatio memoriae'' applied, since that was the exact penalty imposed by the BCS when they nullified the entire ''participation'' of USC in the 2005 Orange Bowl and 2006 Rose Bowl (pages (along with USC's entire 2005 season, nullified by the NCAA beforehand) I would've deleted eight weeks ago under encyclopedic verification, but we now have a conflict between ''damnatio memoriae'' and encyclopedic verification).
== July 2011 ==


AND, since Misplaced Pages does not respect the BCS as a sanctioning body (trying to remain neutral – I'll get to that in a moment in part two!), Misplaced Pages accepts as valid USC's 14 vacated victories, including in a BCS National Championship Game which no longer logistically should exist. Hence, Misplaced Pages recognizes (in the form that they won the 2005 Orange Bowl) USC as the BCS National Champion – if Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and their participation in the 2006 Rose Bowl, which was also nullified by the BCS.
] Please stop your ]. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's ] by adding your personal analysis or ] into articles, you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-nor3 --> ].<sup>]</sup> Grammatically incorrect? '''Correct it!''' ] 06:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


Ergo, we now have a non-encyclopedic, non-verifiable situation which is, in fact, ''false''! Only the sanctioning body can give sanction to the event, and only the sanctioning body can take it away. (Remember this one for later, as well!) I ''had'' respected the decision of “no ''damnatio memoriae'', but can do so no longer, because of the fact that it creates an encyclopedic falsehood!
*Excuse me, but you're going to have to tell me which of a number of articles I've updated tonight is the subject of this before I can go ahead and actually discern what it is you are talking about. --] (]) 06:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


And because the collective accepts “no ''damnatio memoriae'', even in cases where it applies, we now have to change one of the hardest and fastest rules on Misplaced Pages, on every editing page.
::Either article related to ''Final Fantasy''. I know your edits were in ], but almost all those page are ] or ], and reliable sources are needed, even when the information is factual and correct. ].<sup>]</sup> Grammatically incorrect? '''Correct it!''' ] 06:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


Encyclopedic content must only be considered verified by the collective. That is all, and also that is the only acceptable basis for content on Misplaced Pages – actual encyclopedic verification is no longer sufficient nor necessary. Anything short of that will be removed by the collective.
:::Hmmm. How does one attribute content from actually having played the game, then? And is it not important, therefore, to state the distinct differences in player-elimination/Game Over conditions between the various versions of Final Fantasy (as well as the necessary expansions for the jobs in XI). You are effectively, at this point, asking me to delete references to VII, IX, XI, XII, and XIII, then. --] (]) 06:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


If I am reinstated, I am considering removal of all mentions of vacated participation in games. That means the 2005 Orange and 2006 Rose Bowls go, as does their mentions in ], as well as USC's entire 2005 season page, replaced with notations of the nullifications. Any other games where the participation of one or both schools are removed also go as well. (As one example, the ] may also be deleted, if the NCAA or BCS nullifies specifically Ohio State's participation in the event.)
::::People can remove unsourced content at any moment, the difference between ''Who Wants'' and ''FF'' are many. The very first is that, again, Final Fantasy articles are featured content and needs to adhere to ] more than other articles. Also, you ''can'' use the videogame as a source, see {{tl|Cite video game}} for further information. ].<sup>]</sup> Grammatically incorrect? '''Correct it!''' ] 07:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::I do not know if you are understanding or not, but when you are going to edit a page a message appears: "Encyclopedic content must be ]" This means that, regardless ] or if it is "the truth", it '''must''' have a ]. ].<sup>]</sup> Grammatically incorrect? '''Correct it!''' ] 07:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


That dovetails nicely into debunking pillar number two:
] Please do not add ] content, as you did to ]. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. If you continue to do so, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced3 --> ''Do not give your own guess as to what will happen. You must source content.'' ] (]) 03:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


If the collective is the sole basis for acceptability on Misplaced Pages, then '''Misplaced Pages cannot be neutral'''. In fact, when the collective is mis-informed and prejudicial, on top of being inaccurate, this redoubles that, since the collective enforces the rules, Misplaced Pages is not at all neutral, but written with the biases of the collective in mind.
*There is no "guesswork" here, sir. Punk won, left the arena with the title, Cena is fired, Punk is not with the company per se. Once things clear up on RAW, they can change it again. --] (]) 03:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


An example on this is the last incident which finally led to what drew the ban:
] '''This is your last warning'''. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with <span class="plainlinks"></span> to ]. <!-- Template:uw-huggle4 --> <font size="3%"><font color="578bc7">'''℥'''<sup>]·]</sup></font></font> 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


]. I don't think I need to go in to great detail, because some of the admins saw it, but the dispute was basically that the collective enforces that one match is already signed to the event while openly denying another match being signed for the event, though both matches were, for the time being, finalized in wrestling “promos” since Mania XXVII.
*Then block me. I gave you two different sources as to the events of that night. You want a Wiki War, you got one. --] (]) 03:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


I believe that the collective of wrestling editors on Misplaced Pages are a bunch of snot-nosed marks, worthy of little good faith, and little else. I believe their biases have entered into the discussion, making it impossible to be accepted by the collective, meaning only really two options: Leave the editing, or leave Misplaced Pages. In both options, the material (amount and composition) on the page is now ''false''. Either both matches are “scheduled” for Mania XXVIII, or neither is.
*Let's not do this. Both of you, try to take a breather. Starcade, it wasn't vandalism. I let the other user know. Ending-start, I already just left a message on your talk page. ] (]) 03:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


I have no respect, admins, for what I call “truth by consensus”, because of events such as exactly this. Misplaced Pages's collective can then enforce an encyclopedic reality (in their own eyes, see pillar #1) on anyone using the site, either to edit or to gain information, even if that information is ill-informed, misleading, or, frankly, prejudicial! And again, this basically brings us, in an extreme case, to a statement made on my talk page by a (CENSORED BY ORDER OF ADMINS) named ChristianandJericho:
**The only real Wiki War was what I was about to do and that was to revert it back to what I put on there and dare Ending-start to have me blocked. You got your sources, and I put them in my edit after your call. As I said below, I disagree with your belief that this is "aftermath", since it is a direct result of the stipulations (and the specific stipulations) of this particular match. I fear what we have is a very sad John Cena mark over there. --] (]) 03:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


''You know you should just STOP editing your edits are false, you haven't made one good edit, the whole community is against you, you are being uncivil, you have been reported TWICE, and you are not familiar with WP:CRYSTAL. --Christianandjericho (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) ''
***Okay, sure. That could be considered part of the PPV (though I would disagree). But still... we have the background section for that which doesn't exist yet for that specific article. Do not get into an edit war, it's not worth it. I don't think it's a Cena fan at all. I think he's just trying to keep the article like other PPVs which is what should be done. I agree with you that it should be edited in but in the appropiate section. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


He is then correct, even if he is (CENSORED BY ORDER OF ADMINS). The collective has completely rejected any contribution I make on a wrestling page, because of ''their '''false''' interpretation'' of WP:Crystal. Especially when I demonstrate that they are lying (which I will not be civil with open liars – especially on a forum considered an encyclopedia (again, see pillar #1)) and prejudicial, as I believe the only way that the characterization of the match I wished added being WP:Crystal and the match considered not WP:Crystal is a WP:Crystal in itself! – that the wrestler involved is not considered an acceptable candidate by the community (nor, it is believed, the WWE itself!) for this match, and will be removed from the conditions in which he gains this match by the time the card takes place. It is the open bias against Daniel Bryan that is the basis for their action – no more and no less. Otherwise, either both matches, at this point, are WP:Crystal, or neither match is.
****Hmmm... You see, that's where I get into discussion with you. With ''this specific stipulation'' and the confusion I noted below, where do we put it? It isn't a straight up Loser Leaves Town match, more has to happen. The other question one might have to ask is if the cash-in actually happened. (The Wrestling Pulse site lists a match attempting to start between ADR and Punk, no such reference is made on the WWE site.)


To say that John Cena/The Rock is not WP:Crystal and to say Daniel Bryan's cash-in is is blatantly '''false''', '''arrogant''', '''prejudicial''', and '''worthy of contempt'''. If you wish to have this stand, you will have to permanently ban me from posting to any wrestling page whatsoever – the decisions have already been made vis-a-vis the collective, truth and verifiability be freaking damned! No edit I make in any wrestling page will ever be accepted by the collective, because the collective is wrong, and frankly does not even deserve “good faith” nor any respect.
*****Far as I know the cash in never happened. No bell was rung. If it was, CM Punk would still be the champion due to a count out (he ran out of the ring far more than a ten count). BTW, that site is more of a blogger kind of thing. I wouldn't use it as a valid source at all.
Regardless though... you can't actually put the aftermath/background in the results box. ] (]) 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


This dovetails nicely into Pillar #3:
== Your edits to ] ==


'''Misplaced Pages cannot, then, be “free content” in which anyone can edit.'''
Look, I know you linked to the source, good.
But the problem is, we don't do it that way. Look at the other PPV articles for WWE. You have the aftermath in the aftermath section.
Just wait till someone makes one or make it yourself; you don't add the aftermath to the match results. ] (]) 03:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Basically, only those accepted by the collective should be allowed to edit. In fact, more and more, I am seeing it basically come down to, as not only a function of the content itself, but of an ambiguous demand to “do it the right way”, that certain parties should be the only ones to edit pages. Edits themselves can be discussed, but the general public attempting to edit will almost certainly be reversed by those within the hierarchy who claim such authority, even if no real authority exists.
*It's not "aftermath". Unless you want to say the entire del Rio episode during the PPV was "aftermath", and remember the SPECIFIC stipulations of the match. Punk winning is NOT sufficient for Cena to be fired, and WWE's own article on the match now lists him as "fired". --] (]) 03:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


An example of this I've ran into:
*You're kinda mixing it all up. I get exactly where you're coming from, as in I understand what you mean. :)
But the thing is, it's just after the PPV. So, we have to put in the aftermath and the match section. Look at any other PPV and you'll see what I mean. But the results are just the that... results. The thing with ADR would go in the match descriptions. ] (]) 03:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


The ''Final Fantasy'' “preferred pages” or whatever you wish to have called their designation. One night, being bored and thinking about it, I realized something interesting in the different concepts of the combat in different ''Final Fantasy'' games. In VII and VIII, “Game Over” only occurs when the active party is eliminated through knockout. In IX, an additional condition (either way) of being Stop-ped can create victory or defeat. In X, the same condition exists as VII and VIII. In XII, the entire party must be eliminated. In XIII, only the party leader is defeated.
**I'm not angry with you, but it seems like we'd have a real problem going forward if we didn't have that in the match result, since the stipulation of the match is not satisfied with Punk's win alone. I'm not disputing "how you guys do it", I just think we have (in this specific case) enough confusion in the IWC regarding whether Cena's firing comes from Punk's win or his fleeing the arena. See where we are here? --] (]) 03:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Having played these games extensively, I decide it might be interesting to put the differences on the pages. All are reverted, and, since I used playing of the games to be the “source”, I'm called for WP:OR.
***Technically speaking... Cena is fired. If you really want to put it like that then you could say "Punk won and left the arena with the title and Cena was fired as a result". It doesn't specify what the exact reason was (as is your complaint just regarding that, I believe) so there should be no problem. Apart from the fact that it should be in the Aftermath/Background section and not the results.] (]) 03:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Now wait a minute! In that case, I have no place editing those pages at all, be it by their status within Misplaced Pages, or the collective's skewing of the rules – because there is no way to give the hierarchy of the FF pages sufficient sourcing, even though anyone who's played the games enough knows all this to be true.
**** That's essentially what I tried to do with explaining about del Rio, but the problem is that, since the match stipulations continued outside the match, would that not mean the failed attempt by del Rio is also part of the match and it's stipulation? I can agree that anything which will happen on the 7/18 Raw is most certainly aftermath, but, as is evidenced in the discussion and edits before the card, there was significant confusion regarding the stipulation. That's my issue. Simply saying "Punk defeats Cena" and leaving the "fired" stip on the other side might have confusion that Punk defeating Cena was all that is necessary. --] (]) 03:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


I have also ran similarly afoul of a number of game show pages as well.
*****Well the problem is, that you still can't put it in the results section. First you need to decide it's aftermath or else background (it'd be background I'd wager).] (]) 03:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


The only people, then, who should be allowed to edit, are those accepted by the collective to do so, and this becomes harder-codified once a page or set of pages receives a certain designation within Misplaced Pages. Everyone else has to go to the talk pages for the different information they'd like to see added.
] Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of ], such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --> ''Look, I already tried explaining it to you. Look at any other WWE PPV article and you'll see how it's done. I'm removing the edit you made do not edit it back.'' ] (]) 03:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Additionally, you get to the point I stated above with the pro wrestling pages: Once a person is shunned by the collective, they cannot post, block or no block, because anything they post will be considered vandalism by somebody! (And I'll address that too, once I get to the end of the “Five Pillars”.)
*If we're going to do that, then only a very select number of people should be allowed to edit a given type of article such as you suggest for WWE PPVs. I've seen several different WWE PPV articles, and they appear to be somewhat inconsistent in such quality. Some give match details in an "Event" section, many do not. But if we are going to strive for that degree of consistency, then the general public should NOT be allowed to edit such articles. Just MHO. I tried to add an Aftermath section with the whole del Rio thing (sourced), you bounce that. I tried to source it within the match listing, you bounce that. At this point, the best thing might be to disqualify me from future editing of WWE PPV posts, since I'm not going to be able to satisfy you at all, because the way it's listed now, at least IMHO, is ''extremely'' confusing to an uninitated reader.--] (]) 03:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Pillar #4 is why I got banned. Since I know my beliefs and my edits will not be accepted by the collective (and I knew this before I joined Misplaced Pages – this is a pre-existing condition, not a function of Misplaced Pages), '''I cannot respect nor be civil with a group of people I see as open liars'''.
It's not confusing in the slightest. You have the background. This gives background information. An example would be describing the fued that led up to the matches. The event is a description of the matches. Usually in a bit of detail. The aftermath is what happened after the event... as in on the next shows. I don't have a problem with it but as of now, there isn't anything really sourced. I mean sure, you can use the wwe.com one but we still don't know exactly what will happen. So it's best to just wait. ] (]) 03:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


If you expect me to abide by Pillar #1 (though I am demonstrating your complete contradiction of all five pillars), then placement upon Misplaced Pages gives a certain degree of encyclopedic sanction and acceptability as a reference point within the Internet community.
*Were you around before the card, as there was significant discussion as to what to put into the match listing, and I finally just put in the exact words of Vince McMahon from the July 4 promo -- "if he leaves Chicago with the title"? The problem is, the match result does not go that far, and may imply that the confused who believed that all Punk had to do to get Cena fired was win the match were actually correct in the first place! As of right now, WWE has Cena kayfabe fired after Punk fled the arena. If that changes later, someone can edit it later, but it's encyclopedically verifiable (as of right now) that WWE has declared Cena fired (again).


In that case, if the collective becomes the ones propagating falsehoods (see the examples I gave in both Pillar #1 and Pillar #2!), then respecting that undermines the entire integrity of Misplaced Pages. Effectively, the community has vandalized those pages, through their actions – but since the collective is the final law here, then it inverts, as I will address further once I finish the Five Pillars.
By your listing, it would have to be in an "event" section which, right now, does not exist. It does not go in Background nor in Aftermath (what happens Monday obviously goes in the latter)...--] (]) 04:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


I believe that most people in this country have been either brainwashed to or elect to become as stupid as humanly possible, willing to go with the herd, even if it results in a Lemmings-like plunge off the cliff. If you expect me to respect that collective, then I cannot edit, for that collective will (and sometimes to it's own whims and biases) deny anything, if even the denial's reason be only that it's me who's posting it.
Then make an event section or wait for someone to do it. Just because you're impaitent does not mean you can edit articles so you can put things in faster. ] (]) 04:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


I cannot be civil with open liars. It is fortunate that I have not had an emergency ban put on me beforehand for an even worse offense, since I do have the criminal record, background and mental state to justify that statement – and that incident is already on Misplaced Pages as well!
== Stop it. Now. ==


Pillar #5, '''Misplaced Pages does has one firm rule.''' The collective rules all.
{{{icon|]}}} I have neither knowledge nor interest in wrestling. However I have both knowledge and interest in the Misplaced Pages code of conduct regarding ]. Please desist immediately from leaving edit summaries such as and more especially . Please do remember that civility extends to edit summaries. ] might be a good page to read when you start to suspect that editing WP is some sort of contest. Regards, ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


The collective declares ''who'' can post, ''where'' they can post, ''what'' they can post, ''the level of verification'' (if any) required, and ''what is even considered “true”'' in the first place.
== AN/I ==


It does not have be through administrative action, but it might well be through the threats of same.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. - ]] 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages has false, misleading, ambigious, and prejudicial information probably all over the place, given my limited experience here. But the collective effectively uses a skewing of the rules and concepts of Misplaced Pages to enforce encyclopedic truth (again, Pillar #1) on events which did not (or won't, at least with present information) legally take place.
== Hi ==


The complete repudiation of all five pillars of Misplaced Pages, with evidence to do so, leads me to one conclusion.
I noticed you have been making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages please stop this or you will be blocked again --] (]) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As we look at the definition of ]:

''Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.''

I must come, then, to the following conclusion:

'''Every edit I have ever made to Misplaced Pages, because the “integrity of Misplaced Pages” is determined at the sole whim of a collective not interested in anything more than their own power as a collective, IS, in fact, vandalism, and needs to be administratively nullified, consequences on your end be damned.'''

Every – last – one.

That, effectively, if we are going to be forced to respect the kind of people that openly lie and misdirect other people on Misplaced Pages, then a person like me, since I do not respect a collective which is demonstratably doing so (and, in fact, reject all five pillars of Misplaced Pages and the concept of a collective truth), is vandalizing the site by even attempting to edit it, even if the information is true, and even if it is otherwise-verifiable under what would be the stated rules on such information.

In reality, my presence on the site becomes a vandalism to the site.

I refuse to have reality enforced upon me with a set of users who not only lie openly, but cover themselves in Misplaced Pages's rules to do so. If that's that much of a problem to you, you have but one option, which contains two parts:

First: The block becomes permanent.

Second: Every edit I have ever made on the site is reversed for vandalism, and you guys can deal with all the resulting issues.

--] (]) 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

== August 2011 ==
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''Indefinite'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}, but you should read the ] first. ]] 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->

If an new user associated with this IP address wants to create and account and can't, please contact me on my talk page or via email (left hand side of my talk page) ]] 19:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

== User:ChristianandJericho ==

I should note that ] recently received a long block over some issues regarding a comment about his IP (]) on AIV, and more generally referring to former blocks, contested CSDs, and a recent huge blow-up about him saying he's 13 while participating in WikiProject Pornography. My main interest has been ideological pertaining to that last issue, and I haven't looked at the interaction between these two editors, but the range of allegations regarding that editor might justify some leniency for this one if the case is reexamined. ] (]) 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:04, 25 May 2022

Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages as of July 27, 2011.

Starcade's Final Statement

I had a sick feeling it would come to this. It always seems to, in this day and age.

This will probably be declared my last wiki-edit by the administrators (and that's even if I'm allowed to put this on my Talk page), for I am compelled to believe that the administrators of Misplaced Pages will have to extend my ban permanently, not as a function of a Wikibreak, but as a function that I cannot exercise “good faith” in a consensus which does not care whether the information is accurate, verifiable, or even true.

In fact, given the current state of Misplaced Pages, it is no longer sufficient nor even necessary to act in “good faith” and provide verifiable information. What is sufficient, and the only thing necessary, is to provide information the collective will accept as verified – note that I did not say “verifiable”. If the garbage I have to put up with like on almost every meaningful edit I've made in the last eight weeks is true, the collective has already spoken and I have no place on Misplaced Pages whatsoever, especially because I believe that the consensus is not only wrong, but either flagrantly mis-informed or down-right stupid.

This stands in violation of basically all five pillars of Misplaced Pages.

First, Misplaced Pages is NOT an encyclopedia as long as the general public is allowed to edit it, but only in the form in which a collective will accept.

I will give a good example of this in the first real problem I ran in to about 6-8 weeks ago:

BCS National Championship Game. I tried a number of edits to properly represent the BCS' nullification of the participation of USC in two illegal Championship Games, and removing their designation, since the games no longer are believed to have taken place. http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=6632189 An edit war began on that subject, and the subject of Misplaced Pages's rules regarding “no damnatio memoriae came up. I proposed, and repeatedly, that the concept of damnatio memoriae applied, since that was the exact penalty imposed by the BCS when they nullified the entire participation of USC in the 2005 Orange Bowl and 2006 Rose Bowl (pages (along with USC's entire 2005 season, nullified by the NCAA beforehand) I would've deleted eight weeks ago under encyclopedic verification, but we now have a conflict between damnatio memoriae and encyclopedic verification).

AND, since Misplaced Pages does not respect the BCS as a sanctioning body (trying to remain neutral – I'll get to that in a moment in part two!), Misplaced Pages accepts as valid USC's 14 vacated victories, including in a BCS National Championship Game which no longer logistically should exist. Hence, Misplaced Pages recognizes (in the form that they won the 2005 Orange Bowl) USC as the BCS National Champion – if Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and their participation in the 2006 Rose Bowl, which was also nullified by the BCS.

Ergo, we now have a non-encyclopedic, non-verifiable situation which is, in fact, false! Only the sanctioning body can give sanction to the event, and only the sanctioning body can take it away. (Remember this one for later, as well!) I had respected the decision of “no damnatio memoriae, but can do so no longer, because of the fact that it creates an encyclopedic falsehood!

And because the collective accepts “no damnatio memoriae, even in cases where it applies, we now have to change one of the hardest and fastest rules on Misplaced Pages, on every editing page.

Encyclopedic content must only be considered verified by the collective. That is all, and also that is the only acceptable basis for content on Misplaced Pages – actual encyclopedic verification is no longer sufficient nor necessary. Anything short of that will be removed by the collective.

If I am reinstated, I am considering removal of all mentions of vacated participation in games. That means the 2005 Orange and 2006 Rose Bowls go, as does their mentions in BCS National Championship Game, as well as USC's entire 2005 season page, replaced with notations of the nullifications. Any other games where the participation of one or both schools are removed also go as well. (As one example, the 2011 Sugar Bowl may also be deleted, if the NCAA or BCS nullifies specifically Ohio State's participation in the event.)

That dovetails nicely into debunking pillar number two:

If the collective is the sole basis for acceptability on Misplaced Pages, then Misplaced Pages cannot be neutral. In fact, when the collective is mis-informed and prejudicial, on top of being inaccurate, this redoubles that, since the collective enforces the rules, Misplaced Pages is not at all neutral, but written with the biases of the collective in mind.

An example on this is the last incident which finally led to what drew the ban:

Wrestlemania XXVIII. I don't think I need to go in to great detail, because some of the admins saw it, but the dispute was basically that the collective enforces that one match is already signed to the event while openly denying another match being signed for the event, though both matches were, for the time being, finalized in wrestling “promos” since Mania XXVII.

I believe that the collective of wrestling editors on Misplaced Pages are a bunch of snot-nosed marks, worthy of little good faith, and little else. I believe their biases have entered into the discussion, making it impossible to be accepted by the collective, meaning only really two options: Leave the editing, or leave Misplaced Pages. In both options, the material (amount and composition) on the page is now false. Either both matches are “scheduled” for Mania XXVIII, or neither is.

I have no respect, admins, for what I call “truth by consensus”, because of events such as exactly this. Misplaced Pages's collective can then enforce an encyclopedic reality (in their own eyes, see pillar #1) on anyone using the site, either to edit or to gain information, even if that information is ill-informed, misleading, or, frankly, prejudicial! And again, this basically brings us, in an extreme case, to a statement made on my talk page by a (CENSORED BY ORDER OF ADMINS) named ChristianandJericho:

You know you should just STOP editing your edits are false, you haven't made one good edit, the whole community is against you, you are being uncivil, you have been reported TWICE, and you are not familiar with WP:CRYSTAL. --Christianandjericho (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He is then correct, even if he is (CENSORED BY ORDER OF ADMINS). The collective has completely rejected any contribution I make on a wrestling page, because of their false interpretation of WP:Crystal. Especially when I demonstrate that they are lying (which I will not be civil with open liars – especially on a forum considered an encyclopedia (again, see pillar #1)) and prejudicial, as I believe the only way that the characterization of the match I wished added being WP:Crystal and the match considered not WP:Crystal is a WP:Crystal in itself! – that the wrestler involved is not considered an acceptable candidate by the community (nor, it is believed, the WWE itself!) for this match, and will be removed from the conditions in which he gains this match by the time the card takes place. It is the open bias against Daniel Bryan that is the basis for their action – no more and no less. Otherwise, either both matches, at this point, are WP:Crystal, or neither match is.

To say that John Cena/The Rock is not WP:Crystal and to say Daniel Bryan's cash-in is is blatantly false, arrogant, prejudicial, and worthy of contempt. If you wish to have this stand, you will have to permanently ban me from posting to any wrestling page whatsoever – the decisions have already been made vis-a-vis the collective, truth and verifiability be freaking damned! No edit I make in any wrestling page will ever be accepted by the collective, because the collective is wrong, and frankly does not even deserve “good faith” nor any respect.

This dovetails nicely into Pillar #3:

Misplaced Pages cannot, then, be “free content” in which anyone can edit.

Basically, only those accepted by the collective should be allowed to edit. In fact, more and more, I am seeing it basically come down to, as not only a function of the content itself, but of an ambiguous demand to “do it the right way”, that certain parties should be the only ones to edit pages. Edits themselves can be discussed, but the general public attempting to edit will almost certainly be reversed by those within the hierarchy who claim such authority, even if no real authority exists.

An example of this I've ran into:

The Final Fantasy “preferred pages” or whatever you wish to have called their designation. One night, being bored and thinking about it, I realized something interesting in the different concepts of the combat in different Final Fantasy games. In VII and VIII, “Game Over” only occurs when the active party is eliminated through knockout. In IX, an additional condition (either way) of being Stop-ped can create victory or defeat. In X, the same condition exists as VII and VIII. In XII, the entire party must be eliminated. In XIII, only the party leader is defeated.

Having played these games extensively, I decide it might be interesting to put the differences on the pages. All are reverted, and, since I used playing of the games to be the “source”, I'm called for WP:OR.

Now wait a minute! In that case, I have no place editing those pages at all, be it by their status within Misplaced Pages, or the collective's skewing of the rules – because there is no way to give the hierarchy of the FF pages sufficient sourcing, even though anyone who's played the games enough knows all this to be true.

I have also ran similarly afoul of a number of game show pages as well.

The only people, then, who should be allowed to edit, are those accepted by the collective to do so, and this becomes harder-codified once a page or set of pages receives a certain designation within Misplaced Pages. Everyone else has to go to the talk pages for the different information they'd like to see added.

Additionally, you get to the point I stated above with the pro wrestling pages: Once a person is shunned by the collective, they cannot post, block or no block, because anything they post will be considered vandalism by somebody! (And I'll address that too, once I get to the end of the “Five Pillars”.)

Pillar #4 is why I got banned. Since I know my beliefs and my edits will not be accepted by the collective (and I knew this before I joined Misplaced Pages – this is a pre-existing condition, not a function of Misplaced Pages), I cannot respect nor be civil with a group of people I see as open liars.

If you expect me to abide by Pillar #1 (though I am demonstrating your complete contradiction of all five pillars), then placement upon Misplaced Pages gives a certain degree of encyclopedic sanction and acceptability as a reference point within the Internet community.

In that case, if the collective becomes the ones propagating falsehoods (see the examples I gave in both Pillar #1 and Pillar #2!), then respecting that undermines the entire integrity of Misplaced Pages. Effectively, the community has vandalized those pages, through their actions – but since the collective is the final law here, then it inverts, as I will address further once I finish the Five Pillars.

I believe that most people in this country have been either brainwashed to or elect to become as stupid as humanly possible, willing to go with the herd, even if it results in a Lemmings-like plunge off the cliff. If you expect me to respect that collective, then I cannot edit, for that collective will (and sometimes to it's own whims and biases) deny anything, if even the denial's reason be only that it's me who's posting it.

I cannot be civil with open liars. It is fortunate that I have not had an emergency ban put on me beforehand for an even worse offense, since I do have the criminal record, background and mental state to justify that statement – and that incident is already on Misplaced Pages as well!

Pillar #5, Misplaced Pages does has one firm rule. The collective rules all.

The collective declares who can post, where they can post, what they can post, the level of verification (if any) required, and what is even considered “true” in the first place.

It does not have be through administrative action, but it might well be through the threats of same.

Misplaced Pages has false, misleading, ambigious, and prejudicial information probably all over the place, given my limited experience here. But the collective effectively uses a skewing of the rules and concepts of Misplaced Pages to enforce encyclopedic truth (again, Pillar #1) on events which did not (or won't, at least with present information) legally take place.

The complete repudiation of all five pillars of Misplaced Pages, with evidence to do so, leads me to one conclusion.

As we look at the definition of Vandalism:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.

I must come, then, to the following conclusion:

Every edit I have ever made to Misplaced Pages, because the “integrity of Misplaced Pages” is determined at the sole whim of a collective not interested in anything more than their own power as a collective, IS, in fact, vandalism, and needs to be administratively nullified, consequences on your end be damned.

Every – last – one.

That, effectively, if we are going to be forced to respect the kind of people that openly lie and misdirect other people on Misplaced Pages, then a person like me, since I do not respect a collective which is demonstratably doing so (and, in fact, reject all five pillars of Misplaced Pages and the concept of a collective truth), is vandalizing the site by even attempting to edit it, even if the information is true, and even if it is otherwise-verifiable under what would be the stated rules on such information.

In reality, my presence on the site becomes a vandalism to the site.

I refuse to have reality enforced upon me with a set of users who not only lie openly, but cover themselves in Misplaced Pages's rules to do so. If that's that much of a problem to you, you have but one option, which contains two parts:

First: The block becomes permanent.

Second: Every edit I have ever made on the site is reversed for vandalism, and you guys can deal with all the resulting issues.

--Starcade (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GedUK  19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If an new user associated with this IP address wants to create and account and can't, please contact me on my talk page or via email (left hand side of my talk page) GedUK  19:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:ChristianandJericho

I should note that User:ChristianandJericho recently received a long block over some issues regarding a comment about his IP (User:113.161.74.88) on AIV, and more generally referring to former blocks, contested CSDs, and a recent huge blow-up about him saying he's 13 while participating in WikiProject Pornography. My main interest has been ideological pertaining to that last issue, and I haven't looked at the interaction between these two editors, but the range of allegations regarding that editor might justify some leniency for this one if the case is reexamined. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)