User talk:Nomorecorruptcops

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, we could start another dialog... but it looks like you'll get yourself blocked fairly quickly with this username. -- Curps 04:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question remains... has any article ever been made better by anything you've done? Again, someone went to the trouble of getting Iraqi resistance changed to the more neutral Iraqi insurgency. What have you ever accomplished? -- Curps 05:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty no. Nothing. Of course not. It is impossible to get anything done except scorched earth. Now I note the above example and that's very good but the fact that it was called resistance at all is pretty damning. I agree with the change of course, my title might have been Iraqi terrorists but insurgency is on the money. I know the point you are making and I accept its validity but you have seen Jurassic Park the film I assume and the notorious kitchen scene. With the raptors. That's what Viajero and his sock puppets (even including 14yo's no less) are like. THey move in for the kill, in a co-ordinated pack. Watch him in action some time. Nomorecorruptcops 05:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, we disagree there. It is possible to get plenty done. It's always possible to take a break from political stuff and go edit some other topics. I do that when I get sick of the bickering, which is actually most of the time. People really interested in up-to-the-minute political topics will probably read blogs anyway, not the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's still a great source for obscure information about other topics. -- Curps 05:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes true. [1]

That is one image page. read it and you'll see what I mean. on an image page! Nomorecorruptcops 05:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what is wrong with these people? a "staged event"? what a sick joke

You're correct that the wording there was POV, I edited it. The caption should just stick to a basic neutral description of what's portrayed. -- Curps 05:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the point is, you need to patiently make things balanced, not go off the deep end and vandalize pages ("coin telephony professionals", etc). It doesn't accomplish anything. -- Curps 05:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blah--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hohum Nomorecorruptcops 05:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COINTELPRO has many meanings obviously. I didn't get involved in the coin telephony professionals edits although I support their right to free speech. If it's good enough for Ward Churchill, the fraudster it should be good enough for moi. Nomorecorruptcops 05:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[User_talk:Nomorecorruptcops2]

Ah, come on. That was you, and you know it has nothing to do with "coin telephony". Telling transparent lies with a straight face just hurts your credibility, just like crossing the line into vandalism also hurts credibility when admins wade in and assess the situation and just automatically revert. -- Curps 05:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The only thing you accomplish by disrupting articles like Ward Churchill is to get them frozen in a state that is the opposite of what you want; further, you get other users to circle the wagons and resist any change, making it difficult for any editors who try to project a more moderate image (the Tony Marvin persona) to make any changes either.

The question is, does it matter? Maybe Wikipedia isn't that important, or maybe it is, but either way the disruption doesn't make sense.

If Wikipedia isn't that important, then it makes no sense to spend extraordinary time and effort to try to disrupt it. The time could be more productively spent reading or contributing to blogs and message boards and online forums, writing letters to the editor, participating in real-world political grass-roots political activity, etc.

If Wikipedia is important enough to matter, then the last thing you want is for articles to be frozen in the "wrong" state and made more difficult to change, because the article in that state will get picked up by Google and various Wikipedia clones and mirrors.

Politics on Wikipedia is like politics in real life. It's frustrating and slow, and requires tremendous patience to accomplish relatively small things, but there are no shortcuts in real life either when dealing with people who you disagree with. Lashing out and losing your temper only hurts your own credibility and hampers the ability to get things done, not only for you but for anyone else trying to accomplish anything. -- Curps 06:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

your message

Hi, I removed your personal attack from my talk page.

I take it from your message, and your commentary here, that you object to being blocked. Let me remind you that you were blocked for vandalism; it is the responsibility of the administrators on this site to block vandals. This is not Usenet; this is not an internet opinion forum; this is not a place for flame-wars to push your agenda; this is an encyclopedia. The idea here is to work collaboratively with other editors, not confrontationally.

Listen to me, User:Nomorecorruptcops. We need good conservative editors here, just as we need editors of other political persuasions, since it is impossible to achieve true NPOV on political topics without having a mix of viewpoints among contributors. If you can get beyond making personal attacks and committing vandalism, we would welcome your contributions. There is a good deal of sense in what Curps has written above; please give it some thought. Thanks. Antandrus 15:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)