User talk:Love over Money
Allow me to restate what I had in the message below before it was altered:
This user has been accused of being User:Bird under another name. You may wish to see User talk:Bird/Brain and stuff for more information on the Bird/Brain affair before continuing. Fennec 18:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This user has been accused of being User:Bird under another name. You may wish to see User talk:Bird/Brain and stuff for more information on the Bird/Brain affair before continuing. Or you may wish to go have a snack. Or you may wish to read the article then follow Fennec's suggestion. Or you may wish to ask why Fennec is trying to direct your behavior. Refactored by Make it real 06:06, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Fennec 17:12, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you added a message saying "Wikipedia is dangerous for children". Can I ask what you meant? Yours, Meelar 01:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Is that what that says? These clunky browsers! I was writing a letter to somebody else and my clipboard must have pasted that in there. Love over Money
- I notice the page history of the article was deleted immediately. Is that sort of cover-up common at this site?Love over Money
- Is that what that says? These clunky browsers! I was writing a letter to somebody else and my clipboard must have pasted that in there. Love over Money
Why did you make a List of Wikipedia hazing victims? ugen64 01:07, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
- because reports of hazing are serious matters that should be called to the attention of any community, and especially in one that invites children to participate.Love over Money
It's gone now: if you want to comment on Wikipedia, please don't do it in the main article space. -- The Anome 01:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- i had trouble loading the proper nomenclature for wikipedia:list of wikipedia hazing victimsLove over Money
By the way, please read the article on Wikipedia:Wikilove. We are not interested in forming a clique -- you can contribute to the encyclopedia without hindrance if you can fit in with the community at large. However, apparent vandalism does tend to bring people out to "defend" the encyclopedia content against perceived threats. Can you help us help you? -- The Anome 01:12, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Oh. I see. What is the test to qualify a person "fits in with the community at large"? Race? Gender? Class? Linguistic tendencies? Because there are messages plainly posted at the top of each page instructing people, including myself, to EDIT THIS PAGE
- Now if you are suggesting that is not addressed at me, please explain. It appears to be addressed at any human who can read the words. Are you suggesting I am not human? What am I, then? A nuuubee?
Stop playing games. You know the policy: anyone who wants to help make an accurate and neutral article is welcome to contribute. If that is your aim, please stay. If that is not your aim, please be elsewhere. --Uncle Ed 14:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You stop the games and I won't play. You are assuming this writer has to freedom to speak critically of this writers own work. Other users made a game of trying to dictate the opinion the writer expressed of earlier work and until you and several others acknowledge my personal autonomy to publically critique my own work. If that doesn't stop the games, then perhaps you do need to learn a little more about aim.
- The rules of the game now are that the more you inhibit my right to criticize, the more aggressively, publicly and effectively I will target criticism at other parts of the work. A review of the edit history associated with these articles should persuade you this writer is more than qualified to play your game, ed.